Talk:Hurricane Barry (1983)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Hurricane Barry (1983) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 6, 2008
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Merge

Too little information outside of the storm history. While the storm history is nice, it has to have more information that a stub outside of the storm history to remain an article. This storm isn't that notable, and it wasn't a Cape-Verde type hurricane, as inaccurately stated in the intro. Big yes for a merge. Anyone disagree? Hurricanehink 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unless the impact section can be expanded. (BTW I'm responsible for the "Cape Verde-type storm" terminology; it seemed a simple copyedit of the text that was already there.) Jdorje 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Just checked NHC. There is some more information in the NHC report, but the storm was so minor that there would be no point. Hurricanehink 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone still opposed? Hurricanehink 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not I. Merge it. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

Not bad. Needs a minor copyedit for B-class. --Coredesat 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    No offense, but the writing isn't good. The sentences are short and boring, and the use of the name Barry is used way too much in the storm history. Also, there are serious MoS issues. For example:
  • No casualties were reported from Barry, but thirty fishing boats were sunk in Mexico, along with the destruction of several hundred homes.—Numbers above 10 are numbered, not spelled out. Also:
  • Damage included four hundred homeless people & a major loss of shrimping nets—There should never be use of & in an article other than in proper names.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References seem good.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Surely there is more information all-around.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Good enough, I guess.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. 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):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    There are many issues with the article, and at the current time it does not pass the GA criteria. Thus, I've put the article on-hold for seven days for the improvments to be made. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)