Talk:Hurricane Marco (2020)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Grabbing this review

Images

• All the rights are in order.
• Captions look good
• Minor MOS:SANDWICH issue

Copy-vios

• Nothing exciting
• Earwig only flags simple phrases and proper nouns

Sourcing

• FN 1 and FN 3 are duplicates

References 1 and 3? They're different outlooks. Tails Wx 17:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I wasn't checking the archived source, my bad. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• No concerns about reliability.
• All links are either live or archived

Misc

• Minor vandalism in May, but page is currently stable.
• Nominator is primary author

Prose

• was the first of two tropical cyclones to threaten the Gulf Coast of the United States within a three-day period, with the other being Hurricane Laura.

- MOS:FIRST The first sentence is meant to give a brief summary, this is a bit too vague

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• The thirteenth named storm and third hurricane of the record-breaking 2020 Atlantic hurricane season...

- Weirdly formatted sentence

Most leads in hurricanes describe it like that. Tails Wx 16:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Due to strong wind shear... Split sentence

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Why is the formed date listed as "August 20, 2020", there is nothing in the body to support this

Body now supports the formation of the tropical cyclone on August 20. Tails Wx 16:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Shortly after being named, Marco continued to contradict the forecasts and followed a more northerly course

-It's never explained what the forecasts were. This is also contradicted since you later say the storm went east, this may be a product that the fact that there is no chronology established here.

Removed! Tails Wx 16:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• As it was a small system... reorder sentence, hard to follow

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• 'Relentless ' WP:PUFFERY

Fixed! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• but that was changed in post-storm analysis. What was it changed to?

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression Fourteen" why is it designated at 13th somewhere else, more clarification is needed

 Done Tails Wx 16:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• "600 additional resources"

-Don't start a sentence with numbers, say "Six hundred" (There's a MOS policy somewhere but I'm writing this at 1:30 AM)

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• this was more than twice the average August rainfall of 9.1 in (231 mm) awkward wording

Fixed! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Despite this, the NHC did not attribute Marco to any deaths in their post-storm report why?

Unfortunately, there's no reason why. The tropical cyclone report the National Hurricane Center released for Marco did not mention the indirect death, therefore the reason is unknown. Numerous sources did state that there was a death connected to the tropical cyclone, however. Tails Wx 16:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• there was flooding due to the growth of rivers that come from mountains nearby awkward wording

 Done! Tails Wx 16:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• However, heavy rainfall Cut however, repetitive wording

 Done! Tails Wx 15:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Comment: The prose is a little awkward, but otherwise the page is close to GA status. Kicking it back to you. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx That appears to be everything, I made a second pass of the article and made some minor prose modifications, please review them when you can. While ALT text is highly recommended, it is not an explicit GA criteria. At this time the article passes, congrats on another GA!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.