Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article in the next few days. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

So far, I have only reviewed the article's lede, and I am not impressed. The entire section seems to be just a rehash of the meteorological history of the storm, with very little attention put to what the storm actually did. It needs a significant revamp for it to be an acceptable summary of the article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Late in September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Mexico. On October 3, the wave developed into a tropical depression and then into Tropical Storm Norbert the next day. — Why is this in the lede? Why does it matter? (You are also missing a space after the period of this sentence, and you need to link to weather terms to keep the article from being too technical, but I still think you need to get rid of this sentence anyways.)
   • Norbert ultimately became a hurricane on October 7 and rapidly intensified to a Category 2 hurricane and it became a major hurricane on October 8. — You could just said that it rapidly intensified into a major hurricane the day after it formed, instead of going through a laundry list of classification changes.
   • It continued to strengthen into a Category 4 hurricane before weakening back to a Category 3 by the morning of October 9, and weakened into a Category 1 hurricane that afternoon, but restrengthened into a Category 2 the next day, and became a minimal major hurricane midday on October 11, and it made landfall in Baja California Sur as a Category 2 later that day. — huge run-on sentence, plus most of this information is not needed anyways.
   • Norbert then hit the mainland of Mexico as a Category 1 hurricane. — too imprecise. The "mainland of Mexico" could be anywhere from Sonora to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
   • The final advisory on Norbert was issued on the morning of October 12. — Again, why does a person who is not a weather geek care about the final advisory? Why can't you keep it simple and say that it dissipated?
   • Norbert claimed 25 lives with three people missing and caused $716.4 million in damages throughout Mexico, — $716 million USD or MXN? Is that in present-year dollars or base year dollars?
   • with the worst damage in Baja California and Almos, Sonora. — it's Álamos, not Almos.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   More to come. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)