Talk:Hurricane Lane (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
The following comments have been left for this page: Needs a light copyedit for GA, and ideally, some pictures for A. Titoxd(?!?) 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Hurricane Lane (2006) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

B-class? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'd do it, but I wrote the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review process

• NPOV:OK
• breadth:Needs more discussion of on the ground factors. What kind of housing stock was affected? building types? More on structural nature of the damage. More detail on crops and infrastructure damage. Any wet weather overflow? (SSO)
• accuracy: appears OK
• sources:sufficient on line, but what about a couple of books or print articles?
• prose:needs to conform to WP style guide, especially for spacings and when to write out small numbers; also intro should be a bit more comprehensive.
• images:not bad, but how about one ground based image?
• stability:OK

Anlace 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no books yet (the storm occurred just a few months ago), and there are no print articles that I know of. There are no free ground based images, as the hurricane hit in Mexico and all images I have seen are copyrighted by news sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept your point on the images of aftermath, but there must be some photos around of the areas before the hurricane actually hit to give the reader a sense of the areas that were affected. Regarding print ads, even better referencing of the newspaper articles will do. the problem is, that by relying on on-line sources alone, some of these url s will die off. In fact one of your on line cites is already dead. Anlace 05:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, even on wikipedia, there are photos of some of the places you discuss (eg Culiacán). i am not proposing that image but i think you can find a free image of at least one pre-impact site. good luck with the article improvements. Anlace 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, images aside, is there anything actionable I can do, as images are not a requirement for GA's. Having done hurricane articles for about a year now, I've seen that not all online urls die off. There exists a lot of online newspaper sources for a hurricane back in 1999, for example. Online sources generally provide just as good information as newspaper sources unless the newspaper is in Spanish from the landfall area. Unfortunately, I don't have any access to Sinaloa spanish newspapers, so that isn't really actionable. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the style guide and breadth issues above. These items are more critical than images for the GA. Also remove non working links (i found one in random checking of two) and supply at least a couple of permanent non on line newspaper refs. Anlace 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've checked, and that is all that is available for info. I'd like more info regarding the breadth issues, but there aren't. I don't see why it is so imperative to use non-online sources. I've written 11 featured articles that do not use non-online sources at all. I added more lede and added  's to numbers. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how the hurricane articles work. No-one is going to bother writing books about minor hurricanes that didn't even affect the U.S., and even that, just a few months ago. Please be realistic - there's plenty of tropical cyclone GAs and FAs without offline sources. – Chacor 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I can see with this article is just a couple of resources, such as $109 million needs to be ciated. Other than that, I am happy to promote this article to GA status! Please tell me once the changes have been made. Jasrocks ^(talk) 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in the impact section. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry don't know the exact methods you use. Must of missed that. Other than that the article looks all good, so I will promote it. Thanks for the quick response :) Jasrocks ^(talk) 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

Have upgraded this article to GA status. Believe that it is well written and all images are properly tagged, as well as there being many references. Well done! Jasrocks ^(talk) 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)