Talk:Hurricane Florence (1953)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Very nicely done article. Just has a few niggling details that need resolving and I'll be happy to pass it for GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

• "The origins...were from a tropical wave" sounds slghtly awkward. Is there a better way to say this? "Hurricane Florence developed from..."?
  • Well, I don't want to imply that Florence developed on September 21, when the TW was first observed. I wanted to indicate that the precursor system to Florence was first observed as a TW on that date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The peak winds may have been estimated too high" - doesn't sound quite right. "The estimate of the peak winds may have been too high" might sound better, I'd think.
  • Yea, I like the ring of that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "By six hours after moving ashore" - the "By" should be removed.
  • I changed "by" to "within", since it wasn't exactly six hours afterward. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "While it was first developling" - reccoment "While the storm was..." Also, where did it drop the 10" of rain that isolated villages and blocked roads? Haiti? Cuba? Both?
  • Hah, whoops, it's supposed to say Jamaica. Good catch. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Early in its duration" - sounds very awkward. Is there a better way to say this? "Early in its existiance?"
  • Heh, it's actually sort of tricky, and the wording was deliberate. The default would be "early in its lifetime", but tropical cyclones don't have a lifetime. That said, "existence" is a great alternative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "which was credited" - "which were credited" is better grammar here I think.
  • Yea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• suggest "being caused" to be added after "in the event of heavy damage".
  • OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• What Coast Guard ship was battling the storm?
  • It doesn't say, but even if it did, I think that would be sort of trivial. It's not like Coast Guard ships are given SS names (afiak). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, they do get "USCGC Foo" names. ;) But as it is, it's suitable for a GA - for A-class or FA, though, I'd think the name will be needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Some research reveals the ship was the USC&GS Hydrographer (commissioned '28) Juliancolton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• "left crop damage" - "caused crop damage" would read better. Also, what crops were damaged? Corn? Cotton?
  • No idea actually. The source didn't specify, and I couldn't find details in other sources, so I just added "minor" before "crop damage" to better reflect what the source said. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "shelter/shelters" is used three times in the same sentence; not sure there's any other way to say it though.
  • Bam, dropped to one usage! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• an "of" needs to be added to "Heavy rainfall was reported in portions Alabama". Also, "a report one inch shy of the 24 hour precipiation record" - what was the record?
  • Added. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No OR, and the references are all A or A+ quality. Suggest wikilinking Grady Norton's name in the refs though. Also, is there a reference that states about the ships not confirming the wind estimates?

   Sure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article sticks to its topic and covers it well without digressing.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral in its presentation, avoiding peacock phrasing and weasel words.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears to be stable and without edit conflicts.

5. 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):

   Three weather-map images, all appropriate, PD, and captioned. However, is there any chance that photographs of the "storm in progress", or of the aftermath, could be added?

   Not for that time, unfortunately. Photographs of the storm in progress, if any, would be in newspapers and thus copyrighted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this article on hold so that the above comments can be discussed and addressed. Shouldn't be too hard, and then I'll be happy to pass this as GA. :) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   Sweet, thanks a lot for the review. I'll still be a few points behind you, so I think you may just squeak out a win for the first CUP round! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   No problem! And it's always fun to compete in creating quality content, since no matter who wins, Wikipedia does. :) The only quibble I have remaining is the Coast Guard's ship name; but that's only a quibble; everything looks good, and this is hereby declared Passed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)