Talk:Hurricane Ignacio (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hurricanes
 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.
Good article 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.
Good articles Hurricane Ignacio (2003) 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.
An entry from Hurricane Ignacio (2003) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 January 2007.
Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

Contents

[edit] Assessment

Wow. Go ahead an GA it.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how'd you see this article already? There's no links to it anywhere! :P Yea, I'll put it for GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You're edit summary said you finished so I typed in the title.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, OK. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Sentence in Lead

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean: "It was not initially predicted to track out to sea and remain a weak tropical storm, though it unexpectedly organized rapidly..." Was it, or was it not, expected to track out to sea? If not, it should say something like "Although even initially predicted to affect land, Ignacio organized faster than anticipated..." If so, the "not" should be removed. —Cuiviénen 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on hold

I've seen your previous contributions to multiple hurricane-related articles, and numerous GAs so you should have no problem fixing some minor things I noticed before I'll pass it (you got quite a backlog of articles waiting in GAC, don't you?)

1. Well written?: The article is well-written but there are a few things that should be fixed:
  • Fix redirects for: Baja California Peninsula & banding features
  • Either wikilink or further explain: dissipated, convection, wave axis, depression, bags of sand (to sandbag), swells, Mexican Navy, thunderstorm & forest fire
  • Misspelled: detiorating -> deteriorating, vessle -> vessel, reserviors -> reservoirs
  • The statement "Shortly after forming, westerly wind shear while dry air approached the depression from the north, resulting in a marginally favorable environment[4] and leaving the center of circulation exposed from the convection..." sounds quite complicated for the average reader, if you can simplify it somewhat.
  • The statement "...with the National Hurricane Center predicting it to attain major hurricane status and potentially significantly stronger if the center remained over open water." It doesn't seem parallel with "signficantly stronger", possibly "potentially increase in strength significantly".
  • The statement "...a watch upgraded to a warning nine hours later." Should possibly be "and the watch upgraded..."
  • The statement "Many roads remained impassable by a month after the hurricane." change to impassible for a month...
2. Factually accurate?: Information is well-sourced with plenty of inline citations, good job.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all aspects of the hurricane, if possible you could expand on the reconstruction after the hurricane.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears NPOV, make sure it stays that way.
5. Stability?: No problems here.
6. Images?: Good usage of images, possibly add another of the areas hit by the hurricane with any damage if you get the chance.

Overall, very good on all aspects throughout the article. I was interested to see that the second to last statement declares that power was knocked out in Atwater, where I live in the summer months, so that was interesting to discover when reviewing this article. I'll leave this article on hold for seven days for these above suggestions to be fixed. Let me know when you finish or if you have any questions on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the redirects and typos. I wikilinked some of them, but not wave axis (already wikilinked to tropical wave) or depression (just a term for a tropical cyclone of weaker intensity). Got everything else that's doable. Unfortunately, there's no more info on reconstruction that I could find, nor could I find any usable damage pics. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Good job on fixing those so quickly. Make sure that all new information is properly sourced with inline citations if possible. If you can, keep expanding, but I'm sure you have other hurricanes to take care of. Keep up the good work, and I'll hopefully get to reviewing a few more of your articles later this week. --Nehrams2020 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/r/Talk%7EHurricane_Ignacio_%282003%29_ca26.html"