Talk:Hurricane Able (1952)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing your article over the next several days! I will make non-controversial copyedits and minor fixes along the way, and should soon be back to make my report. Good luck! (This is my first review, but since I have added my second GA nominee, I felt it was only fair to start reviewing too! ;]) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The GA review completed on 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

1. "By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye, and the next day estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) as they reported concentric eyewalls." - I'm sorry, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say since the second clause has no predicate.

   The predicate is the same as the first clause. It's like, if I say: "The dog wagged its tail, and the next day was put to sleep." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

   Now that you explain it, it makes sense. (I had thought that "estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)" was a gerund phrase with associated modifiers.) However, it still reads slightly confusingly. Could we try something like:

   By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye, and the next day they estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) as they reported concentric eyewalls.

   Or,

   By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye and, the following day, estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) while they reported concentric eyewalls.

   Either of these (besides breaking the sentence into two sentences) reads better in my opinion.

   IDK, the first one has two "they"s, which I think is redundant. The second one just replaces "next" and "as", making it longer. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

   Maybe this:

   By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye and estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) while reporting concentric eyewalls the next day.

   Really though, it's up to you to decide whether you want to since it is a matter of personal preference.

2. Why not wikilink to the 1952 Atlantic hurricane season in the "See also" section?

   It's already linked in the lede and the infobox, as well as in the button bar on the bottom. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

   Nevermind, then.

3. Out of curiosity, how do the meteorologists know when Able formed and when it became a tropical storm if they first observed it on August 25, as stated in the lead.

   It wasn't first observed in general, just that was when it was first observed by the Hurricane Hunters. Although not present in the available sources, I assume they extrapolated its track back to the coast based on observations in the Cape Verde islands. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

   (NOTE: This isn't an issue; I was just wondering!)

4. The statement that "It was first observed by the Hurricane Hunters on August 25 to the north of the Lesser Antilles" in the lead is not supported in the text. In fact, the text gives the impression that it was discovered August 18. (This source supports it, however, so why not add a citation to it in the lead or state it a little more clearly in the body text.)

   "The next day [August 25], the Miami Weather Bureau Office initiated advisories on Tropical Storm Able after the Hurricane Hunters confirmed the presence of a poorly defined center." The article prose just gives greater clarification to what is summarized in the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

   OK, that isn't much of an issue.

5. "A smaller than normal hurricane..." - The size of Able is not given in citation.

   Huh, I swear I saw that somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed

6. National Arboretum is a disambig page.

   Didn't know, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed

7. Reference #11 is a dead link. You linked to "http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcmidatl.html.html", which is a dead link (404 error). Didn't you mean to link to "http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcmidatl.html", which is a working link?

   Heh, yea. Don't know how that happened. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed

Okay, now that those issues are out of the way for the most part, I have found some more sources you may be interested in. (It's fine if you don't use them.)

1. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management gives information about the strength and exact location of the tornado that struck Virginia.

   Yea, I saw that before and opted not to use it, but I didn't realize they included the strength, so I added it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Advances in geophysics, Volume 17 mentions that Able weakly interacted with the environment yet still remained an appreciable storm.

   Yea, the same info appears in ref #1, how Able was able to remain a tropical storm over land for so long. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

3. This is a 6 page report on Hurrcane Able of 1952.

   That ref appears in ref #1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    Done

Overall summary

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I think this passes the GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Apart from the one sentence mentioned above, the prose looks good.

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): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Thank you for your hard work!

Thanks for the review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)