A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion is closed. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)NOOBSKINSPAMMERReply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision was "Keep"; discussion is closed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Barry (2019)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 11:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have deleted my original review. Ella524 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review reopened

In this case, a brand new Wikipedian opened this review on their first edit, and decided to pass it even though they were completely unable to judge the "Broad in its coverage" criterion. This only shows how unready they are to be a GA reviewer, and I have reopened the review so that a new reviewer can be found to redo the entire review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlueMoonset, the new user turned out to be the person who nominated the article for a GA review. They have been blocked and NOOBSKINSPAMMER was blocked for 3 days. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see plenty of issues with the article that need to be addressed... I will leave comments later today. NoahTalk 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, thanks for letting me know. Hurricane Noah, as this was an out-of-process nomination by someone who had made no edits at all to the article when they first tried to nominate it on May 19 and succeeded on June 3 (if someone hasn't made significant edits prior, they have to consult with regular editors on the talk page prior to nominating, which was not done), and very minor edits since—and socked to try to pass it—I have reverted the nomination. There is no need to spend time on an article that, as you note, has plenty of issues. Indeed, I'd suggest deleting this page altogether, so it's available in the future for when editors have brought the article closer to the GA criteria and one is ready to do a genuine nomination. Thanks for being willing to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, do we need to keep this page around since its edit history is the proof of the socking? If so, perhaps it should simply be archived. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Barry (2019)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 02:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Will do this one tomorrow and/or Wednesday. NoahTalk 02:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really do apologize, but I won't be able to do this until the weekend (ie Friday night and Saturday) due to a serious google security breach as well as additional RL issues. I am concerned about the mental well-being of one of my friends and need to be there for him. NoahTalk 16:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

This should be it for the sources. I know you are eventually gunning for FAs so I gave you a source formatting review. This is all I will do for now since it took a couple of hours to look over everything. NoahTalk 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead

@Hurricane Noah: Done with the lead. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will return to do the rest in a bit. NoahTalk 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lead is reviewed. NoahTalk 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: I’m glad you didn’t immediately fail it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meteorological history

I will come back and review the rest of the met tonight. I did paragraph one for now. NoahTalk 21:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rest is done. NoahTalk 02:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preparations

Disclaimer that the preps may still need to be expanded based upon what you discover when you search for new info. I am just reviewing what is already there for now. NoahTalk 02:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reviewed what is currently there. NoahTalk 02:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impact

Disclaimer that the impact may still need to be expanded based upon what you discover when you search for new info. I am just reviewing what is already there for now. NoahTalk 02:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's everything I found pending your additions. NoahTalk 03:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Would you have comments that you would like to leave for the article? NoahTalk 02:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurricanehink's review

The article is in OK shape, but it looks rather similar than the last time I looked at the article (when I first helped write the article). I'm not happy with the level of coverage, so I hope you can address these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Just curious to see how you feel about the article. I wouldn't be opposed to giving a bit more time since more content is being added in. @Destroyeraa: Btw, there is a date error on FN58. NoahTalk 23:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it's almost there, just a few outstanding comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unhappy you're unhappy with the amount of coverage. I hope you're happy now. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurricane Noah's Second Review

Doing a second review of the article this weekend. NoahTalk 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources

I hate to be picky with things, but if you take this to FAC, some source reviewers will be quite picky. This is a combination of new things and items that weren't completely fixed the first time around. NoahTalk 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is all I am going to do source-wise. If there are more issues, they can be addressed by future reviews. NoahTalk 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead/Prose

Lead
Mostly minor things remained in the lead... I will review the prose later today or tomorrow. NoahTalk 18:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Met
That should be it for the met. NoahTalk 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Preparations
Should be it for the preps. NoahTalk 20:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Impact
That should be it the for impact. NoahTalk 00:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aftermath
Should be it. NoahTalk 00:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricanehink: If you see anything else that I missed, please feel free to add it here. NoahTalk 00:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Destroyeraa: Any updates on progress? NoahTalk 15:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final

Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Result
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) There were sentence structure issues, grammatical errors, abbreviation issues, and several other problems (see reviews above). These issues now appear to be resolved. NoahTalk 02:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article now complies with the MOS; the only real issue was lack of alt text for images. NoahTalk 02:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) There were large quantities of formatting errors, wrong publisher names, and inconsistencies that were pointed out and addressed by the nominator. NoahTalk 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The references for the article all were to reliable sources. NoahTalk 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There was no original research present. NoahTalk 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There were no copyright violations or plagiarism. NoahTalk 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article lacked a lot of details initially on both impact and aftermath. There were major expansions to the impact via information from the storm events database and news sources. The entire aftermath section is a new addition of information. The article now appears to be comprehensive enough information-wise. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) There were never any issues with excessive detail. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    There were not issues with neutrality. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    There haven't been any recent edit wars or content disputes. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images have appropriate liscensure. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images have appropriate captions. NoahTalk 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Pass Pass


Result Notes
Pass Pass After an extensive and long review process, I believe this article now meets the good article criteria. NoahTalk 02:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.