Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Eye (cyclone)
Eye (cyclone)[edit]
Archived discussion. Current status: {{FA-Class}}
I nursed this article to a GA a while ago, not sure what it needs to get it up to FA. Open to comments, suggestions, complaints, insults, or what have you :-P -RunningOnBrains 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its lede needs to be a bit longer. An extra paragraph (or two, at most) would suffice. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, more lede. I suggest finding another place to put the Betsy image. One image in the lede suffices. Basic definitions could probably be merged into the lede, seeing as it provides a summary of the article. More sourcing is needed throughout; the structure section has little sources, though most likely the info can easily be sourced. Annular hurricanes could use some more explaination, as well. The caption for the Wilma image should be shortened. Other storms can probably be all just one section, rather than splitting by the sub-sections. All in all, it looks pretty good. I would mainly like to see more info wherever possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since sources have been added to the Structure section, I'd say it's good to go. It's good that it isn't bloated - let's keep it concise as it is. I'd tag it A-Class, but I've worked significantly on the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree for A class, and I think it's ready for FAC. Any additional problems could be addressed there. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since sources have been added to the Structure section, I'd say it's good to go. It's good that it isn't bloated - let's keep it concise as it is. I'd tag it A-Class, but I've worked significantly on the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, more lede. I suggest finding another place to put the Betsy image. One image in the lede suffices. Basic definitions could probably be merged into the lede, seeing as it provides a summary of the article. More sourcing is needed throughout; the structure section has little sources, though most likely the info can easily be sourced. Annular hurricanes could use some more explaination, as well. The caption for the Wilma image should be shortened. Other storms can probably be all just one section, rather than splitting by the sub-sections. All in all, it looks pretty good. I would mainly like to see more info wherever possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- FA'd a long time ago. It's going to be showcased on WP:TFA this week, by the way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)