Talk:Tropical Storm Gert (2005)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
Tropical Storm Gert (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. | |||
|
||||
 |
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] Todo/assessment
Rainfall totals or any actual damage would be appreciated. Hurricanehink 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Is the info here helpful, though? I'm not entirely sure, so I've left it out.[1] Titoxd(?!?) 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- And some boilerplate public advisory text:[2] Do we need that too? Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. I can't read much of it. What do each of them basically say? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 02:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The first one is basically government fluff: "The governor visited the farms hit by the storm, and promised relief" is what it boils down to, basically. The only thing of probable importance is that the government was going to spray insecticide to stop a dengue and West Nile virus outbreak from occuring. The second one is a public advisory, telling everyone what to do ("evacuate here and there, follow your civil protection plans", etc...) Titoxd(?!?) 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. I can't read much of it. What do each of them basically say? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 02:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- And some boilerplate public advisory text:[2] Do we need that too? Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is ok so far, but the storm history could use some more info. These phrases could use rewording: "those unfavorable conditions did not completely destroy the wave" and "This time, though, the wave quickly developed the deep convection it needed to become a tropical cyclone." Maybe TWO's should be used. The impact is getting there, but it's a bit listy in places. Do you need to say, "according to..."? Does it matter where the source came from (in prose)? It doesn't flow very well. Try and organize the paragraphs. Maybe have one just devoted to meteorological impacts, or you could organize it by state. The phrase "but in spite of those worries" is a little unusual and should be rewritten (if not removed). It's getting there. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The impact is nowhere even close to complete. I'm still working on it. The two phrases you mention are iffy, but I didn't know which way to write them and have them sound ok. The "In spite of" was pretty dead wrong, because the NHC was saying there were no deaths as a result of the storm, but there actually was one, so the TWOs aren't really helpful, in this case. Titoxd(?!?) 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, I'll check it later. The TWO's are mostly useful for the storm history, which could provide other details potentially missed in just the TCR. I'm not sure about those phrases, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, info about Veracruz is harder to find that I expected... although I found a lot about Stan: [3] Titoxd(?!?) 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- For my future reference, I found an oil impact link: [4] (can't write, my head is spinning, I've read too much text) Titoxd(?!?) 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- More oil: [5] Titoxd(?!?) 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- More: [6] Titoxd(?!?) 04:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- One more, and now I'm gone... [7] Titoxd(?!?) 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, info about Veracruz is harder to find that I expected... although I found a lot about Stan: [3] Titoxd(?!?) 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, I'll check it later. The TWO's are mostly useful for the storm history, which could provide other details potentially missed in just the TCR. I'm not sure about those phrases, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good job so far! I moved it up to B. CrazyC83 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
This article meets the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. It is well written, well sourced, and there are no major NPOV, image or stability issues. There are quite a bit of red links in the article, which should ultimately be dealt with, though. I'm not sure if all of these really need to be linked, and the article as a whole is a bit heavily linked; links to things like units of measurement are largely unnecessary as well. But these are fairly minor issues that are a bit beyond the scope of the GA criteria. Good work! Dr. Cash 02:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
