# Talk:Tropical Storm Laura (1971)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch
Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images comply to fair use requirements, with suitable captioning.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:
This is my first time review an article for GA, I think it is wrong that you had to wait this long. Anyway, I have a few minor suggestions before I can pass or fail. On the final paragraph about the ACE of Laura, it is stated "Tropical Storm Laura set the record for having the highest accumulated cyclone energy of any named North Atlantic tropical cyclone that did not attain hurricane status, with a value of 8.61. This value is an approximation of the kinetic energy used by a tropical system throughout its existence. There was a tropical storm in 1913 that had a value of 15.6325.", the sentence is rather confusing, as the reader would be puzzled why they were just told that Laura had a higher ACE value, but then the last sentence about the tropical storm in 1913 have a higher amount. I think that that last sentence would be better read as this: "Tropical Storm Laura set the record for having the highest accumulated cyclone energy of any named North Atlantic tropical cyclone that did not attain hurricane status, with a value of 8.61, although an unnamed tropical storm in 1913 had an ACE of 15.6325", or something similar. Bottom line: your readers might think that the article is contradicting itself. 
There is another issue I have, some of the references have their cited webpage having a specific date, although it would says that year (1971) on those. Reference numbers 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 have only the year listed, but there is a specific date on the page that is being cited. Remember to make them consistent with the reference #11, having the date as xxxx-xx-xx (year, month, and date numerically).--12george1 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC). 

Those were my only issues with the article, so I will pass Tropical Storm Laura for GA.--12george1 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yea, thanks for the catch about the ACE. I added that 1913 one after I initially wrote it, and it shouldn't matter about named storm or not, so I changed the wording. I got the refs, too. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Laura had the second-highest accumulated cyclone energy of any North Atlantic tropical cyclone that did not attain hurricane status, with a value of 8.61. The highest was from a tropical storm in 1913 that had a value of 15.6325. This value is an approximation of the kinetic energy used by a tropical system throughout its existence. 
I removed this per the recent WT:WPTC discussion. Unless we can find a reliable source who says the above, we shouldn't have it in the article, since otherwise it borders on WP:OR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Laura (1971). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312215337/http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm to http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)