Talk:1927 Nova Scotia hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 21:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George. I will be reviewing this article for you in the following days. I have some comments right off the bat following a quick scan-through. 1) The article looks to be in good shape; I don't anticipate many major problems. I like how the numerous maritime incidents are discussed! 2) However, I do wonder if the MH is a bit on the short side, especially for such a long-lived hurricane. I realize that it is an old hurricane, but perhaps sources can be found that detail its history a bit more, maybe from Canada itself? If not, a bit more detail on the (lack of) observations that allowed for the (poor) tracking of the system would be nice. 3) Also, perhaps the very short preparations section could be merged with the impact. Auree ^★★ 21:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked against the good article criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The writing is generally okay without major errors, and the style looks to be in order. I do have a few comments regarding word choice to make the text more powerful and less awkward.
Lead
There are several things I would do different in the opening sentence. The phrasing "since at least 1900" is awkward; upon further research, I see that it is the deadliest of the 20th and 21st centuries, and among the 3 deadliest ever. Moreover, the "as well as ... to strike Canada" is clumsy and a bit redundant. Also, I would link to List of Canada hurricanes instead of to just Canada. Why not something like "The 1927 Nova Scotia hurricane (also known as the 1927 Great August Gale or the Great Gale of August 24) was the strongest, and one of the three deadliest tropical cyclones on record to strike Canada."

"The storm deepened" - I would find a way to either wikilink this term or use simpler wording in the lead.

wikilink "maximum sustained winds"?

Also outside the lead: Avoid starting sentences with cumbersome and antiquated formulations such as "Thereafter;" check throughout.

wikilink "extratropical"?

"Of the 173-192 fatalities" - always use dashes to indicate ranges, not hyphens (also in infobox)

"Property damage in the province was in the thousands of dollars range and there were many electrical and telephone service outages" weird use of "and" here to combine two unrelated bits of info.

"Similar but less severe impact occurred" - weird wording, and try to avoid passive constructions such as these. How about "The storm's rains and winds caused similar but less severe damage/effects in the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland" to combine it with the next stubby sentence.

Overall, although not too far from GA requirements, the prose in this section is a bit underwhelming and dull. I will look to polish it up myself after the concerns above are addressed. More to follow on the body of the text. Auree ^★★ 07:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The references are reliable, although there are issues with formatting, accessibility and verifiability, some more serious than others. Note: I will go beyond GA standards here, George, as you are one of the more prolific content editors of the project and occasionally look to take things to FA. I figure you could make use of learning upped standards in formatting quality. For issues pertinent to GA quality level, see bolded parts.
The first thing I notice is variable use of italics due to indiscriminate use of the work field, where other fields are more appropriate. Please see here for more information on how to use these fields probably. In general, the work field is used to distinguish the digital source – websites, projects, magazines, databases, etc. – in which an article or report is contained, rather than to indicate which body/organized published or created such work (which belongs in the publisher field). The publisher parameter should not be used for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website), and conversely, the work parameter should not be used for the name of a company/organization/agency or one of its divisions (e.g., the National Hurricane Center and Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory are divisions of their parent agency, NOAA, and should be indicated as publisher. Cases in this article: Ref 2, 6, 11.

Names of newspapers should always be italicized, using the newspaper parameter. Examples: Ref 7, 8. Also check the newspaper name for these refs (probably should be Fitchburg Sentinel)

When older works are digitized and hosted by modern archives/websites, these should be included as you did nicely with the Newspaper.com sources. Examples: Ref 1, 13

Ref 1: Could have more complete formatting. The full article title is "Foreign Exchange Rates, European Countries;" it is part of the "Federal Reserve Bulletin" for September 1927, which can be treated as a magazine (a type of work) and is published by the Federal Reserve Board, rather than the Federal Serve System. Lastly, as indicated above, note the digitized archive that hosts it.

Ref 9: Ref link is dead, and missing a publisher.

Ref 10: I cannot see the full article. If it is behind a paywall, this should be indicated.

Ref 13: This is an interesting one. I would like you to really look at this source; inspect it closely and describe what it is; what kind of work it is; by whom it is hosted/published, etc. Is it really just one article, with one author, as the Wikipedia format suggests? What is "The Register," and if it is a newspaper, where is/was it published (since you give publisher locations for other newspapers)?

Ref 14: Ditto as ref 13. What kind of source is this, and who is its author? What kind of entity is "Lost at Sea"? Sometimes, you got to take to the search engines to do a bit of research on the material you are referencing. If you do not understand the source, how can you judge it to be reliable? The title could also be more complete.

Refs 15, 16, 18, 19: Ditto as ref 14. They are all hosted by the "Lost at Sea" webpage. What is "Lost at Sea"? Titles should be much more complete. Be consistent by listing the newspaper location, and which location is listed

Refs 17 and 20: Ditto as ref 13 et al. What is this? What is the "Maritime Heritage Database," and how should it be listed in the reference? Also, check spacing between the hyphens and the years in titles. Auree ^★★ 07:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Aside from the relatively short MH, this article seems very comprehensive for the storm at hand. Auree ^★★ 07:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
The article could benefit from an image or two. Have you checked on Flickr if there are any appropriately licensed images for the storm? You could even include an image of one of the many vessels affected, or at least a similar vessel, with a caption along the lines of "XXX vessel, sister to the XXX vessel lost during the hurricane." See this, for example. Auree ^★★ 07:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Auree ^★★ 07:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I am failing the article given that the above review has been open for nearly a month and there have been no efforts at addressing the comments. Auree ^★★ 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]