Talk:Tropical Storm Marco (1990)

message: Should Hurricane Marco (the disambiguation page) link to here, or is it Wikiproject TC convention to link to the main season article? I'm not sure, hence I didn't change it. Cheers, Daniel 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be to here. I changed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#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.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#: (Even if was created in one edit)
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Here is a greater analysis of my findings:
*I can find no original research, however the lead has no references, so that will need eventual sourcing.  
*All images were appropriately tagged. 
*There was a use of images, that helped the reader gain a greater understanding of Hurricance Marco. 
*Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me. 
*All references used were independent and reliable
*There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)
*The prose was excellent. 
===Post Assessment comments===
I have previously encountered storm-related pages before at the good article nominations page, all of which I have passed because of their well-written and tone of address, i.e informing but not trying to "dumb it down", as it were. I am will to  pass this article on the basis of the current revision (already provided). Well done to the users involved. Rudget talk 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Two things. First, the article was copy and pasted from a sandbox I made, but because I was the only editor (and this article was a redirect) I copied it over. Second, the information in the lead is based on info from the article; to avoid clutter in the lede, those references appear later in the article where that information appears. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see. :)  Sorry about the wait. Rudget talk 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only a reviewer. I have been led to understand that the references in the other sections could also be used in the lead. In which case, "oversourcing" (relying upon it more than 6-7 times) is a consequence, and that could (IMO) subsistitute as reliance upon a source. I could jiggle with the references in place, if you want? Rudget talk 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Well, the rule for sourcing the lede (per WP:LEDE) is that challenging info should be sourced, and I doubt there is anything challenging in the lede (just raw statistics for a fairly boring TS). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Assessment

message: I have previously encountered storm-related pages before at the good article nominations page, all of which I have passed because of their well-written and tone of address, i.e informing but not trying to "dumb it down", as it were. I am will to  pass this article on the basis of the current revision (already provided). Well done to the users involved. Rudget talk 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Two things. First, the article was copy and pasted from a sandbox I made, but because I was the only editor (and this article was a redirect) I copied it over. Second, the information in the lead is based on info from the article; to avoid clutter in the lede, those references appear later in the article where that information appears. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see. :)  Sorry about the wait. Rudget talk 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only a reviewer. I have been led to understand that the references in the other sections could also be used in the lead. In which case, "oversourcing" (relying upon it more than 6-7 times) is a consequence, and that could (IMO) subsistitute as reliance upon a source. I could jiggle with the references in place, if you want? Rudget talk 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Well, the rule for sourcing the lede (per WP:LEDE) is that challenging info should be sourced, and I doubt there is anything challenging in the lede (just raw statistics for a fairly boring TS). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Assessment comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Marco (1990). 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/20120218080034/http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=2081 to http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=2081
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find the wind speed "65 mph (100 km/h)" in this article problematic (both hardcoded and infobox generated): it is imprecise, and inconsistent: other wind speeds in the article are rounded to 0 decimals.
:Actual conversion using : ; from .
I propose improvement & consistency here  at WT:TROP. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind speed issues