Talk:Hurricane Michelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Hurricane Michelle was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 16, 2007

Contents

[edit] Todo

I marked it as stub because it has not a single source. However even aside from that it needs some work. I don't like the chronological structure; I'd rather see it split back into Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath sections. Also the intro needs to be expanded. Overall the content is good so the issues are mostly technical. Jdorje 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Better? Hurricanehink 16:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. It could be B-class at this point but I'd like to see more sources first. Also the impact section could use a summary: maybe in the retirement subsection. Jdorje 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all of the sources were from those two links. That second link has a lot of news headlines, though. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what should be done with the references then. Maybe separate entries are needed each time a bit of data comes from one of them. Jdorje 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Storm History needs to be rewritten. It's filled with typos and broken sentences, and it's not very in-depth compared to other storms of this magnitude. 71.7.210.87 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Juliancolton (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I know you're going to ask for some, so here's a page with tons of them. Am I allowed to use them, because there is no copyright status? Hurricanehink 14:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction:

Did the storm hit cuba with 135mph or 140mph winds? Jdorje 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Both, actually. At Cayo Largo, an island south of the main part of Cuba, it was 140 mph, while mainland Cuba was 135 mph. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

This article failed because it doesn't seem to cover all aspects of the topic and it has a few stubby sub-sections. A few suggestions would be to add a preperation section detailing how people of the affected area prepared and even possibly an aftermath section would go along nicely in the article. Tarret 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (many spelling and grammar errors) (MoS):
  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): (several section too short, such as preparations, Cayman Islands, Florida) b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views): (aftermath in Central America? Any sources from Cuba for its aftermath?)
  5. It is stable.
    (no edits wars etc.)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • It is missing metric conversions
  • It is missing non-breaking spaces
  • Wikilinking is poor
  • The article says people were missing, but this is 6 years later. Surely there is an updated death toll, or at least say if those missing were found. The source was only two months after the event.

--Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Any better? Juliancolton (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly. The article is far from being considered "good". --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What more does it need, exactly? Juliancolton (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I provided some necessary details in my GA review. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, but I can't find any spelling errors. Juliancolton (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's more than just spelling errors. The overall writing is poor, and I provided several examples of what could be done. FWIW, the typos are strenghened, strenght, strenghened, untill, strenght, Michelles, and aroundon. Please take time and learn to copyedit yourself before bothering others when the article is clearly not good. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does wikipedia have a spell check? Juliancolton (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, but if you download the newest version of Firefox, it has a spell checker included, which highlights any incorrectly spelled words. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)