Talk:Hurricane Rick (1997)

Todo?

So what should the article need for the next grade? I'm itching to give the article what it needs for GA or A (let's just save FA for later, since I doubt this article can reach it). Jake52 My island 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Clearer images
• Clearer first sentence; given that Rick was one of seven November hurricanes on record, there was only one December hurricane on record, none of the hurricanes struck Mexico, and I just went through the Atlantic database and no November hurricane struck Mexico, so the first sentence could be Hurricane Rick was the latest hurricane on record to strike Mexico, which would have to cite both the Pacific and Atlantic best tracks in the records section
• Sources in the lede should generally be avoided, since the lede is supposed to be a summary. Is the ref at the end of the 2nd paragraph needed there?
• Category 2 hurricane - should have Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale mentioned
• Dates in the lede would be good
• The tropical wave that formed into Rick - tropical wave should be linked, and that formed should be changed, since tropical waves do not form into tropical cyclones; disturbances develop on the waves, which themselves develop into TC's
• the main way it was tracked - this is awkward; the main way can be removed
• started gaining cloudiness - again, tropical waves spawn tropical disturbances
• Add some more wikilinks to any of the technical terms
• 19-E - Write out numbers for depressions. Also, where did it develop?
• around noon on August 8 - Rick invent a time machine? ;)
• the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Rick - where was it upgraded?
• central dense overcast is a redirect; please fix the link
• Eventually, an eye was visible - when did an eye become visible, or did it gradually appear?
• 100 mph and 973 mbar - Add non-breaking spaces and metric units (100 mph, not 100 mph)
• although some sources say that Rick was a Category 3 major hurricane at its peak - ReliefWeb isn't really a reliable source for that, so I don't think it's needed
• The first paragraph of preps should be shortened
• The HPC rainfall map should be added to the article
• Metric units are needed throughout the impact section

That should be good for now for some things to do. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt Rick was the latest hurricane to strike Mexico, but I had no idea how to source it without making it sound like OR. Thanks for the list! Jake52 My island 09:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I belive that I have resolved the above concerns, so I am GANing this. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Swipe

Although the page histories have been merged, the merge caused the article to revert to the non-sourced form in my sandbox. Should I notify someone or should I replace the whole page with a revert while fixing the error DarkLilac pointed out? Jake52 My island 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should tell an admin. It would be a shame if that was lost! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what?

If we get Rick to GA status, every article in the 1997 Pacific hurricane season will be FA (Nora and Paka) or GA (everything else). We's have a featured topic on our hands! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I separated the tropical depressions into their own sections, so those will need to be expanded, or at least referenced.Potapych (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm a very wordy season article editor, I just uploaded pictures and sourced the text with TCRs. Shall I expand those sections? Or should I nominate the article for an FA again? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The season article needs a bit of work (filling out the references, expansion, copyediting), so it might be best to leave that at GA for the time being. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If we wish to add another FA to this topic, Pauline and Linda will probably take the least amount of effort to get to FA status. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Linda probably needs a significant expansion of the storm history. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a GA. Go ahead and FT nom... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, there's no articles on Andres or Olaf and someone might object on that basis. Cases for articles could be made; Andres' path was called [1]"unprecedented"] and as for Olaf, look at its storm path. (The only other storms that could be considered to need articles because they impacted land are Oliwa and Blanca.) If we add more articles, the two FA's give us enough to add three additional articles without falling below the 20% FA cutoff. Hence, I am now hesitant to nominate. If people think that the topic has enough articles without needing additional articles I'll nominate it anyway. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Rick (1997)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I think the first two sentences of the lead should actually be one sentence, otherwise, they don't really make sense. Please check and clarify.
   • Please run through the article and make sure you keep your tense the same, past vs. present.
   • In "Preparations" you say "as well as airports in Huatulco and Puerto Escondido where power failures occurred." Did power failures occur during Pauline or Rick?
   • Same section, you say "130 Red Cross workers". Sentences shouldn't be started with numerals.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Make sure that all of your refs have publishers, and that they're all formatted the same way with author (if available), title, publisher, access date.

   • Refs must have publishers, which come directly after the title. They do not need authors, which come before the title, although these should be provided if the webpage or newspaper article has an author by-line. For example, refs 1, 2, 12, and 13 have no publisher. For refs 2, 12, and 13, what you now have as the author is what I would put as the publisher information.

   • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Impact" section needs a ref.
   • The last two sentences of the last paragraph of the "Records" section need a ref.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article. I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address the few minor concerns I've detailed above. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have followed through with your suggestions. If this passes I'll polish up Gilma tomorrow. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one more comment on the refs section. If you could take care of this, then I will pass the article. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added/switched authors/publishers for the references you brought up. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I found another link with no publisher, with a dead link (#8), but I've already fixed it. So, since everything has been fixed, I am passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Rick (1997)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a full copyedit before B-class. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)