Talk:Tropical Storm Octave (1983)

Damage

It is unclear as to how much damage it caused. I see 3 values on the page, the one in the article part should be noted what year. I also see no reason for a 2005 USD in the infobox. Who cares about 2005 USD, the current year is 2010, and the storm occurred in 1983. atomic7732 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the year that the article was written. There is an estimation on $300 mil in 1983 but that is just about it. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Was it just Octave?

Same concern applies here that was stated for Tropical Storm Paul (2000). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of such. Ill try and add more details later. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

CB, NWS recognizes it as the remnants of Octave. atomic7732 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, it seems like a similar scenario what I was talking about on the project page, where the actual tropical storm didn't do anything. This article only exists due to the remnant impact, and it seems that impact is rarely even called "Octave". In fact, aside from the MWR and the best track, only one of the refs connect Octave to the flooding, and the NWS actually says "Tropical storm remains...including those from Hurricane Octave" - which implies it might not have been solely Octave. IMO, the article should be moved to October 1983 Arizona flooding - a Google search shows that gets plenty of hits. It seems like a combination of storms, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to call it solely Octave. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am planning to move it to a floods article soon. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, there is non-Arizona data that includes Mexico here. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much though. It still remains that most of the impact was in the southwest United States, caused by a combination of systems. Hurricanehink (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is debatable. We could re-title it Fall 1983 Sonoran Desert flood? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe "Autumn" is more appropriate for seasons, but I think most of the flooding happened in October, so I'd opt for that instead of "Fall". --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Was there actually any damage or flooding in Mexico? All that we get out of the rainfall graphic is that it rained there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, CB. If there wasn't, we can still simply call it "October 1983 Arizona floods". --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There was damage in New Mexico per this. Maybe Autumn 1983 Southwest flood? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose YEs suggested title per WP Policy's that say you can not use Autumn in the topic since Autumn is March, April, and May.Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, Fall 1983 Southwest (U.S) floods? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fall is similarly not allowed.Jason Rees (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(un-indented) How about, "October 1983 Southwest United States floods" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the flood started in September. I like Autumn 1983 Southwest United States floods the best. We could also re-title September/Ocotber 1983 Southwest United States floods, but it is against the naming convention policy. We could also keep the current title. It is debatable. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But, as with the event not being entirely in United States (only primarily), the worst of the floods were in September. We're going for simplicity but accuracy. I agree with CB's suggestion. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, if nobody objects during the next 12-24 hours, ill re-title the article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The conversion from storm to flood article should be done now. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given how-known the event was as Octave, perhaps the article should be moved back? This is clearly a different case than Paul 00 or Noel 01, which were barely related to their events, and the historic topic isn't associated much with them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I had prepared this article in case this would get moved back. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and convert it back. I'll move it now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Useful book?

This book may contain some information relevant to preparations (mostly flash flood watches) and impacts (lots of pictures). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This USGS report is also very relevant. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NCDC

Don't forget to use the Storm Data - [1]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I totally forgot. Ill add it in a sec. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Octave (1983)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Yellow Evan. I will be reviewing Tropical Storm Octave (1983). This is a GA review, but please do not use "this is outside the scope of WP:WIAGA" to avoid fixing some of the more tedious comments. Thanks. :) TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I am YE :P Why should I not to that :P Just because of that, I am going to do that, but I don't think it applies to the below. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I will go more in-depth with this criterion.

LEAD

"By September 30 Octave was accelerating to the northeast..." → Add a comma after the date.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In Arizona, the highest rainfall associated with the event was 12.0 in (300 mm) at Mount Graham." → Odd way to put the highest rainfall recorded. You should change this sentence to – "In Arizona, rainfall peaked at..."

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In Tucson, flood waters reached 8 ft (2.4 m)." → Two issues. First, there is the extra space between waters and reached. Second, 8 ft what? Inland? High? Low?

Clarified. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You say the word 'rainfall' three times within the first three sentences of the lead's second paragraph. Consider changing up your vocabulary a little bit. (Suggested words include, but are not limited to, rain event, precipitation, among others.)

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Moreover, five towns – Clifton, Duncan, Winkelman, Hayden, and Marana – were all almost entirely flooded." → No need to say 'all' since you already said five towns and even listed them.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In addition, 86 of the town's 126 business..." → You need to use the plural form of 'business', which would be 'businesses'.

"A total of 853 houses, mobile homes, and apartments were destroyed while 2,052 others were damaged." → You have a non-breaking space between '2,052' and 'others' but not '853' and 'houses'.

Big deal. Does it matter, really? Please refrain from bringing this up in GAN's in the future. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"About 10,000 people were temporarily left homeless.Damage in Arizona totaled $500 million (1983 USD)..." → Neglected space after the full stop.

Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...which is above the preliminary estimate of $300 million." → Since this is 1983 currency, use 'which was above', not 'which is above'.

Good call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Following the storm, governor Bruce Babbitt declared a state of emergency." → Governor of what?

That what we have the wikilink for. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

BACKGROUND

"Moreover, the months of August and September had been a very wet month for most of the southwest." → The two months at the beginning of the sentence fuse and become one month at the end of the sentence. Also, 'most of the southwest' of what? Mars?

Guess it is a good idea to cover my asses for insane ppl. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In fact, it had rained almost every other day at many weather stations in Arizona." → 'In fact' is not very encyclopedic. That's more reserved for news articles.

It is encyclopedic, you never lives in a desert :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"The remnants of a dying Pacific hurricane brought rain to much of California and part of Arizona." → Be more concise. Hurricanes don't 'die', they 'dissipate'.

Meh, changed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Then, on September 22, the North American Monsoon took over the region." → Again, be more concise, and don't use alternative language which may unintentionally mask the true meaning of the context or may throw the reader completely off. Monsoons aren't oppressiveand expansive governments which take over land.

Tweaked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"This was atypical for later September" → 'Later' is an adverb. Use 'late', an adjective, instead.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"However, in late September 1983, surface weather maps exhibited few unusual features." → You aren't portraying the real meaning of this sentence to the reader. "Few unusual features" leads the reader to believe that this month was a climatologically typical one.

Nah, an "a" was missing. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"A thermal low lay..." → 'Lay' should not be included as part of the piped link.

Good call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

"'Tropical Storm Octave played a vital role in the disaster by supplying warm...'" → Outside of the lead, there's no mention of what 'the disaster' is, or that it was a 'disaster' in the first place.

The lead is part of the article. I think it is pretty obvious. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

METEOROLOGICAL HISTORY

"Within six hours, Octave attained its peak intensity of45 mph (70 km/h) and decreased in forward speed while turning to the northeast." → I would use the term 'slowed' instead of 'decreased'

I would not. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"On September 30, Octave began to accelerate towards the northeast, as it began to weaken due to cooler waters and increasing vertical wind shear." → As far as I know, Octave did not accelerate because it was over cooler waters. As such, use the term 'and' in place of 'as it'.

The sentence does not imply that. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

PREPARATIONS

"Starting on 0100 UTC September 30..." → Usually for a time we use the term 'at' and not 'on'.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...the Tucson National Weather Service office issued 20 warnings and statements including 13 were radar-generated updates." → 'Including 13 were' is a very strange word structure. You should remove 'were'.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Director was quoted in stated that..." → What in the world does 'quoted in stated that' mean?

Cleared. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

IMPACT

Just a little reminder that you should have non-breaking spaces between amounted values and their identifiers.

Two things to say. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Not part of GA criteria AFAIK. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

2) They are there :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...much of the state of Arizona was deluged with 6 in (150 mm) in a mere 2 days in early October." → Two issues. First, 6 in of what? I know you mention what the accumulating substance is before, but you should mention it again. Also, 2 should be written out in word form.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Elsewhere, Nogales reported 9.83 in (250 mm),..." → A city isn't a reporting entity. You should say 'observed', or 'received'.

A city is a reporting entity. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In addition to the rain, winds of 32 mph (51 km/h) were measured." → Where was this measurement?

I don't know TAM. Otherwise, it would be there. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Throughout the state, excessive rainfall caused many rivers to overflow. Water was released from the Coolidge Dam, which forced 75 residents to evacuate." → You should link Coolidge Dam; most readers won't know where that is.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"This marked the third time in 50 years this had happened." → What's 'this' ? The people evacuating, or the dam release?

"After the rainfall ended, the Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Gila rivers experienced their highest crests on record. A flow rate of25,000 cu ft (707,921,165 cc) per second was measured in the Rillito Creek;" → You include Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Gila in a serial comma sequence that is identified as rivers, but then you say Rillito is a creek, not a river.

A creek is a river. Please stop being so nitpicky and be semi-reasonable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...the Santa Cruz river peaked 1,490 m³ (52,620 cu ft)." → You should say 'at a flow rate of' between the word 'peaked' and the value.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...which was somewhat short of the record set during Hurricane Heather during the 1977 Pacific hurricane season." → 'Somewhat' is a word reserved for when there are multiple quantities, with some meeting a set 'criteria' and some others not. In this case, this was one value, so it's better just to remove the word 'somewhat'.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"As Tropical Storm Octave deluged the state, the Rillito creek slowly eroded, and by October 2,..." → 'Creek' needs to be capitalized, and it has been before. Also, creeks themselves don't erode, I think you mean the creek eroded its banks, not itself. :P

Yep. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Runoff from both the Ritillo and Santa Cruz rivers eventually piled up in a delta, flooding Marana." → As far as I know, deltas are solely a feature at the mouth of a stream. Runoff does not just make 'deltas' in the middle of nowhere, and Marana is a far stretch inland from areas of the coast or the coast of a lake. Also, was all of Marana flooded or only portions of it?

Wrong, and idk. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In Marana, many homes were submerged, forcing residents to be evacuated. Only two town residents had flood insurance because officials "didn't believe a flood could occur there"." → Just clarifying, but the lack of insurance was due to the fact that officials had indicated that a flood couldn't occur, yes?

Yea, how is that unclear? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tropical Storm Octave also caused major flooding along the Gila River (which reached its highest discharge rates since 1906)..." → The discharge rate factoid is pretty important, so I'm not sure why you have it in parentheses when it can be a separate clause all together.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"In addition, 86 of the town's 126 business were heavily damaged due to the floods." → Use the plural form of business, like I mentioned earlier.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Gila River near Clifton sustained its largest discharge rates since Clifton was founded." → And when was Clifton founded?

I do not know. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Along the Southern Fransisco River, a peak discharge rate of 56,000 cu ft (1.6×10⁹ cc),..." → A peak discharge rate did what? You leave an incomplete clause because you don't have anything after the value.

no, it is a brain fart. Don't you know me by now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"residents armed with shovels and sandbags fought rising floodwaters after the Hooker Dam, an earthen dam 35 mi (55 km) north of Willcox, burst, preventing further destruction." → What did the residents do with the shovels? Since you use the term 'fought' I get the wrong impression that the residents are just hacking at the flood waters with shovels, which sounds stupid and untrue.

Sorta, actually. Don't take everything literally, most ppl are not like you. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Mohave and Yavapai counties were particularly hard-hit. A relief helicopter crashed in attempt to rescue a woman and her baby, killing its two crew members." → So what happened to the woman and her baby?

I do not know!!! Otherwise, it would be in the article. Jesus Christ. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"two people perished in their car on a Indian reservation in the Gila River valley." → Capitalize 'two', after all, it's the beginning of a sentence.

No, it is not. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"One underpass was filled with 9 ft (2.7 m) deep water." → This sentence makes it look like 'deep water' is a different substance than just regular water. You should say, instead, that 'One underpass was filled with water 9 ft (2.7 m) deep.'

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"The 28 mile (45 km) long Santa Fe Railway 'Prescott Branch' that served the city of Prescott..." → Is the Santa Fe Railway called Prescott Branch, or is the branch some sort of "tributary" of the main railway?

Idk. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"...and downtown Prescott due to floodwaters." → You say 'flood water' earlier in the article but then you combine the two words here. Use consistent spelling.

Flood water and floodwaters are different words. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Extensive damage was reported throughout the state." → I don't get why this sentence is in the seventh paragraph in the impact section when it really should be in the first.

It is a convulsion. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Muhc of the rich tospoil crop was washed downstream into large reservoirs." → Very 'muhc'

"Furthermore, agriculture damage totaled about $97.5 million." → Since 'agriculture', a noun, is being defined to be an adjective to 'damage', use the adjective form, 'agricultural'.

"A father, mother, and two children were swept off their truck in Ash Fork. Two navy officers where killed on September 30 near Ostman when their jet crashed. On October 1, a man drowned in the Santa Cruz river. Another person drowned in a wash near Tuscon when his truck stalled. In addition, a taxi driver and a passenger died when tried to cross a flooded river." → I don't get why this information is all the way down here in a paragraph listing overall statistics. They should be distributed to other paragraphs.

NO, it is a paragraph all about /deaths/ ? What son;t you get about that? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Overall, infrastructural damage in the Tuscon area ranged from $54-100 million;..." → You should make note that it was the estimates that ranged, not the damage that ranged. Also, use an endash ( – ), not a hyphen ( - ).

Stop being so god darn picky. No, just no. Your statandrs are too high, I'm sorry. 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"The system is considered the worst flooding event in Pima county history." → Capitalize 'Pima'.

It is capitalized. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"It is also regraded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona." → Two issues, first, cyclones don't get 'graded'. Also, for such a large recognition, I don't get why this factoid is dumped off with 'also'. You should just say, 'It was regarded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona' and put it before Norma and Storm of the Century information.

It is a typo. What is wrong with you? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Damage in Arizona totaled $500 million, which is above the preliminary estimate of $300 million." → Like I indicated earlier, use 'was', not 'is'.

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Elsewhere, in New Mexico, a peak total of 5.42 in (138 mm) was recorded." → First off it's odd to start off a section with the exact same word as the section title. Better just remove 'elsewhere'. Also, 5.42 in of what?

Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Damage to four flooded counties in southwest New Mexico was estimated at $12.5 million including $6.5 million worth of damage from levees and dikes." → Two issues. First, add a comma after the first 'million'. Secondly, it's damage to levees and dikes, these tools of our society don't give damage.

No and yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Further west, rainfall was also reported in California." → Anything else about this?

No, otherwise it would be in this fricking article. /me throws shoe YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

AFTERMATH

"On October 3, Governor Bruce Babbitt declared a state of emergency." → Again, he's the governor of what?

That is what the wikilink is for, understand? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Many workers from dozens of companies used cranes, dynamite, trucks and hammers to clean up dried 7 ft (2.1 m) mud near some rivers." → I'm sure that it wasn't 7 ft at every river. Also, it's strange how you call it "7 ft mud", like it's some new form of mud. Like I said earlier with the deep water case, you should indicate that the mud was 7 ft deep, not that it was 7 ft.

I suggest you learn to read. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Considerable experience was also gained on how to protect flood banks." → What kind of experience? What was learned?

Wha? 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

SEE ALSO

The tropical cyclone portal should be capitalized.

Big deal. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Has MoS complience; also checked the words to watch page, and this article meets that guideline. I wasn't very thorough in this search, however. They will be covered in the above criterion, probably. However, the lead doesn't make any mention of impacts in Mexico or California. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)}

Because they is no impact in those places. I've been doing this for years, I know what I've been doing. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   References have consistent format, and the two-column reference section limits it from becoming too excessive. However, I find it odd that reference #4 does not have a URL. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all references need links. You should know that. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Article is thoroughly referenced. However, when you say "Ever since Octave, most of southern Arizona has been a drought..." the reference following that (#8), does not even have the word drought in it. The same reference also spells 'Arizona' as 'Ariozna'. Also, the case I state below is also an issue. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Below average is a drought. Please lower your impossibly high standards. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   I'm very concerned for the reliability of the costliest Pacific hurricanes template, as it has no sources. The page it links to has a similar template, but with missing references which would be called original research. Also, I notice that these numbers are inflation-adjusted and wealth normalized, and these adjusted numbers do not appear in their respective storm articles. This needs to be fixed ASAP.

TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to reply to this? I don't wanna spam the fricking article with refrences. And no, it is not welath normalized. And yes, they are in their articles, just not in the infobox. This is WP:CALC and we use a template to fix the data. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the storm to reasonable scope, without going into outside detail. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Covers each section to reasonable length for the storm's impacts there, with sizeable sections for each aspect of the storm. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm a bit concerned that there isn't more information in Mexico. Also, you mention, in the preparations section, that "Despite the lack of EBS broadcasts, NOAA Weather Radio did the best it could to provide updated information on Octave." This is a quite opinionated sentence that does not need to be in this article. If you can replace it with a quote, however, then this will be resolved. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do I even need to reply to the first. It is a minor issue (the second), that I took care of. Does that warrant a fail. No, no, no. That warrants a . YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images were confirmed to be in the public domain, and are properly licensed and tagged. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the topic. However, for the image of rainfall totals, capitalize 'Southwest', since it is a term for a specific, defined area of the United States. Otherwise, use 'southwestern'. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately, the article has several jarring issues that need to be fixed, and as such it falls short on WIAGA. Please be reminded, that the rationale for failing as stated by WP:GAN/i is that the reviewer has felt that the article falls short of such criteria, and the rationale for 'on hold' is that there are few issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this article. Feel free to nominate the article again once you have fixed the aforementioned issues. Thanks. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this article is fine. It had a few issues. Many of these were ridiculous, sorry TAM. These were all MINOR, what harm is there in leaving this thingy on hold? Obviously, I am extremly annoyed at this review and the failure. I work my tail off on the article, and this is what I get in return. I hope you refrain from doing this in the future, that is all I have to say TAM. I am sorry for the borderline civilty comments in this review, I just am out of anger for many reasons. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Octave (1983)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Guess I will be doing my first GA review. There shouldn't be much to fix, since most are fixed from the first GA review. Expect the review to start soon.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Pretty good already.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   What needs to be fixed has been fixed. But "t" in "tropical cyclones portal" needs to be capitalized.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All of them are reliable.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm sure you can add some pictures of damage in Arizona.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice job. Good luck with the 1983 PHS GT.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)