Talk:Tropical Storm Barry (2001)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well done.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- In the Storm history section, it would be best if "August 3", "August 5", "August 6" were linked once.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "On July 24, 2001, a tropical wave emerged off the west coast of Africa, and tracked westward across the Atlantic Ocean. Little development occurred until July 28, when convective activity began to increase. The wave moved into the eastern Caribbean on July 29, and while tracking west-northwest convection continued to increase over the next few days. The disturbance emerged into the Gulf of Mexico on August 1, with associated rainfall over southern Florida and the western tip of Cuba. A broad low pressure system with a minimum central pressure of 1014 developed along the wave near Dry Tortugas, Florida that same day, and beg an to intensify as it moved northwestward. At around 1800 UTC on August 2, an Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft investigated the system and discovered that the low had organized into Tropical Storm Barry. The low developed into a tropical depression six hours earlier, as revealed by post-season analysis"?
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I delinked those dates. Yep, that ref covers all that info. Thanks for the review, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty then. Thank you to Julian for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and passed the article. Congrats. ;) You're welcome on the review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)