Talk:Hurricane Easy (1951)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hurricane Easy (1951) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles 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 reassessment.
February 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
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.

[edit] Todo

Add links for Easy and Cleo to the List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes article, shorten the lede a bit (same reasoning as Cleo, due to lack of overall information), integrate the quotes in the article, clarify the impact (the lede says it damaged some ships' superstructures, but the impact doesn't say anything about that), Wikilink dates, go through the writing again and make it more professional (this day is self-referencing, steamship Barn, who reported is awkward, since a ship is not a person), and get rid of the reference in the Infobox (you could cite a phrase saying that in the storm history). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the improvements. I removed the reference from the infobox. All dates have been linked, and I added links for Cleo and Easy in the Category 5 list. "This day" has been replaced by "the same day" in each article. I could not find additional information about the superstructure damages; it was based on a quote in the MWR.
"Operationally, it was first detected by the steamship Barn, which reported the presence of a circulation.[2]"
Does that sentence sound better? I think I have resolved all problems. The exception is the quotes, but that seems minor to me. CVW (Talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The superstructure damages should appear in the MWR, that's what I meant. Also, I'd like integration of the quotes. Personally, I don't like the possessive use of hurricane and cyclone (hurricane's intensity, for example), as, IIRC, possessives and contractions should be avoided in formal writing. But, it's your choice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Pass for both of them, but there are some jargon terms. Also, the usage of quotes in the article is a bit awkward, such as "sharp" recurvature, or The island "was advised to take full hurricane precautions" in advance of the storm. The quotes should be re-written so it flows better with the prose. Mentioning the Fujiwhara effect is unnecessary, as the term doesn't appear in the provided source.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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):
    Perhaps get an image of the surface weather analysis of Easy, or maybe add the Cat. 5 hurricanes template at the top-right of the preps/impact section. Or, you could do both, by putting the surface weather analysis in the lede, the track map where it belongs, and the template at the preps/impact section.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just some minor things need fixing, but overall a good article. Good work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)