Talk:Tropical Storm Bret (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Bret (2005) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Tropical Storm Bret (2005) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 25, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	Mexico Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	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.

[edit] GA review

The article is very well done and contains most of the relevant information needed for this article, but it is not quite there yet. The first and most important paragraph the introduction, does not have any references in it, please add some.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the info in the intro is referenced in the body of the article. As the intro is just an overview of the article, it does not need and should not have references. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAC review

I've placed the nomination on hold for the following reasons:

• The article is so well written, as far as prose, that I was inclined to check for possible copyright violations. The first sentences under 'Storm history', "A tropical wave accompanied by a weak surface low pressure area crossed Central America and eastern Mexico from June 24 through June 27. An area of disturbed weather associated with this system moved into the Bay of Campeche ...," is a direct copy (with the exception of date format) from reference 1.
  • I'll be looking into this further in a few hours. Any other possible copyvio issues need to be corrected.
• Redlinks are fine as long as they are notable within themselves to have their own article. If any of the redlinks in this article are not necessarily notable enough, remove the wikification of them.

Other than the few issues listed above, it looks good to me. To comment on the previous "review", citation is not required in the lead as long as any claims are sourced in the body. Quotes are the only exception, and their use is discouraged in lead sections. Regards, Lara♥Love 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources for this article are either US Government or not English. Given that, even if a source is directly copied there is no copyright violation, as the work is either public domain or translated - you are being overly paranoid in this instance. Of course, a rephrasing of them is generally preferable. For the record, Hurricanehink is a very good writer.

As for the redlinks, I found all the localities mentioned trivially on a MS Live; each is at least a village (a few are quite large towns) and so all are perfectly valid candidates for a geo-stub. The exception is El Laurel, which does not appear to be a settlement (perhaps a weather station?). I think the sentence beginning "Across Veracruz, the most affected localities were..." is more of a problem in how it is written rather than the redlinks - I suspect half of those locations need not be mentioned.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)