Talk:1942 Belize hurricane/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 07:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: Considering the overall skill of the writers in this area, I don't think that this will be a contentious or difficult review, but I do see some issues right off the bat.
1. Well written:
- a. prose/copyright:
Needs work
- One of your sources, consejo.bz, calls this "Storm Ten" and uses a 1 icon, indicating it was a Category 1 storm. This information seems to contradict your article, in both severity and in the naming (as I don't see where one could get "ten" from "thirteenth observed tropical cyclone, eleventh tropical storm, and fourth hurricane". I have to question the reliability of this site as a source, especially since it carries a banner stating "It would be best to assume everything you read on this site is fiction. Consejo.bz should never be sited as source for academic purposes." on its site policies page.
- Yeah, that information is a bit outdated. A later analysis indicated that this was the 11th hurricane. This was the 13th tropical cyclone because a few tropical depressions were discovered and NOAA does not take this into account, only systems reaching at reach tropical storm intensity were numbered. About the reliability. Interestingly, the statement cited by this source passed DYK and its reliability wasn't questioned. I am going to replace the url with this one. According to that website "The information on these pages is derived from weather statements provided by the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Center, and others, and from hurricane correspondents in the Caribbean.", so reliability probably shouldn't be an issue.--12george1 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- "A ridge aloft blocked the storm's westward and caused it to re-curve west-southwestward on November 6." - It seems like there's a word missing here, as "storm's" is possessive, and "westward" isn't something that can be possessed. Is it "blocked the storm's western progress"?
- Yes, you're right.--12george1 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- In several places, I think it would benifit the reader if the country was added. For example, in the lead it says "Later that day, it made landfall in Cayo Romano, Camagüey Province". I would change that to "...made landfall in Cayo Romano, Camagüey Province, Cuba", as the very next sentence mentions both Cuba and the Bahamas, so it's not clear from context where Camagüey Province is.
- Consider putting the "Nine deaths" sentence before the "Widespread damage to vegetation" sentence. As it is now, you go from speaking about humans to speaking about plants, then back to humans, then back to other damage. It would flow better if those sentences were reversed, I think.
- b. MoS compliance:
Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable:
- a. provides references: Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Needs work
- See my concerns about the use of consejo.bz above, in section 1.a.
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: 
Section acceptable
- a. covers main aspects: Acceptable
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
5. Stable: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct:
- b. relevant/properly captioned:
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable
- a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A
- b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable - I'm generally not a fan of left-aligned images, but it works in this usage.
Comments after the initial review: As expected, this was a relatively straightforward review. A few minor issues that won't take long to fix, and the more serious 2.b. that may require you to track down a different source, are all that I see of issue. Please let me know with a ping or a talk page message when you've either addressed or provided responses to these points. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments after the second pass: All concerns addressed. This one was frighteningly easy to get through. PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)