Talk:Tropical Storm Emily (2011)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

I've had good experiences with GAN reviews in this section before. I hope working with you will prove as easy as working with HurricaneFan25 and Cyclonebiskit. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

- Needs a minor CE, mainly to change around a few words. I'll get around to doing it myself in a few days.

- While all of the hurricane/typhoon GANs I've reviewed have been highly technical, this borders on being completely inaccessable to a general audience. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of your readers don't know most of these terms. When a simpler wording would do, consider using it. Case in point, I've lived through several hurricanes, and I don't understand at all what you mean by "For the rest of its journey across the eastern Caribbean, the low-level center of the storm became exposed from the deepest thunderstorm activity due to moderate wind shear aloft.".

- Specific concerns:

- "any significant damage was confined to Martinique, however, where one fatality occurred. In Puerto Rico, similar floods affected residences and roads, with infrastructural losses in the territory estimated at $5 million." - The only damage figure in the infobox is for Puerto Rico, and yet the significant damage was in Martinique? Shouldn't Martinique also have damage figures, and shouldn't those also be in the infobox?

Well, I meant any significant damage in the Lesser Antilles was confined to Martinique. A damage total isn't available, however. Should I reword this? Auree ★ 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

- I'm assuming that the indirect losses from the Puerto Rican workers being off isn't included because it wasn't damage. That's fine, as long as that's a choice you're making deliberately.

Yep, that's why I left it out. Auree ★ 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

- "In San Lorenzo, imminent bridge collapse lead to the isolation of about 25 families." - the word imminent seems strange to me here, and I can't read the source myself to try and figure out a better wording of the sentence.

Well, the bridge threatened to collapse, which is why those people were unable to exit the area. I'm not sure how to reword it, either... Maybe "In San Lorenzo, 25 families became isolated when a bridge threatened to collapse"? Auree ★ 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Needs work Acceptable

- The lead mentioned three deaths in Puerto Rico. The impact section on Puerto Rico does not mention those deaths. Please add a sentence about the deaths (with a source, of course) to the impact section for Puerto Rico.

I'm afraid I don't follow. The lede mentions the deaths as being in Santo Domingo, which is mentioned later in the article. Auree ★ 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- It would appear I was channeling Dr. Turk there for a second. My bad entirely. Struck.

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

- Critical! Save a copy of the Miami Herald article, so that you can, if need be, make it avalible on one of the archive websites. The Miami Herald does move things behind paywalls relatively quickly, so that link is going to go dead in a few months. (Thanks to checklinks for the reminded)

Archived. :) Auree ★ 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- Good.

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Question

- I see sources in French and in Spanish. Do you speak those languages fluently? If not, how did you translate them, human or computer?

Auree speaks both Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks Hurricanefan25. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I can understand both languages fluently. Auree ★ 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Needs work

- I'll be removing some subtlety non-neutral words when I do the CE. "Finally" is one that I've seen in multiple hurricane GANs. If you really think about it, finally implies that the storm deserves the status it has. I'm picky on word choice like that.

Well, you can interpret it as such, but it could also be interpreted as "lastly", which is what most of us mean. I'll see what I can do about the neutrality. Auree ★ 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- Your point is valid. If you reword it 'finally, xxx happened', that makes it clear that it's a passage of time issue. The way it was worded here it was more along the lines of 'and at <time> xxxx finally happened', which implies that xxxx was being waited for. Looks like this was already changed. If not, I'll tighten it in the CE, as I said.

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct: Needs work Acceptable

- The only thing that File:Emily 2011 rainfall.gif really has is an author. That can be a stand-in for a source, but really, much better could be done. Please have Hurricanefan25 add a source, description, and if possible the rest of the information, contained in a Template:Information form, to that page. Also, all of that new information should be in a Template:Information form.

Yep, fixed. See this. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- :D

b. relevant/properly captioned: Needs work Acceptable

- What does File:Santodomingoemily.jpg add to the article? All I see is a roof porch in a grey day. If that's all that there is to see, I don't see why this image should be included.

Fair enough. Removed. Auree ★ 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer

a. images have alt texts: Acceptable

- You could add one to the rainfall diagram, but it's not really necessary.

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

Lots of red, but nothing really serious that would cause this to fail. Please do note the comment in 2a and the second comment in 1a. The first is a serious issue with a trivial fix. The second is a consistent issue among all of the hurricane writers (although this is an extreme case), with a not so easy fix. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do the CE, and then look at what can be done about the rest of 1a, in a few hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As soon as the Specific concerns (quadruple indented in 1a) are handled, this should be ready. Please respond on this page with your answers. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

PROMOTED I can't be bothered to mark it off above, but everything is up to standard now. With that, I dub thee a GA. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)