Talk:1970 Canada hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Titoxd (talk · contribs) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The main problem I have here is that the first paragraph of the lede is written in proseline. Additionally, multiple weather jargon terms are used in that paragraph (subtropical cyclone, the Saffir–Simpson scale, to name a few), and you need to find links to prevent WP:MTAA from being an issue. Additionally, the entire article needs a thorough copyedit. As for specific details to address, here are some:

   • Damage on the Burin Peninsula was in the thousands, although the specific figure in unknown. — thousands of what? You need to specify a currency here, as well as whether you are talking about base-year dollars or present-year dollars.
   • On the French Territory of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, several building lost their roof due to high winds. — buildings, roofs
   • More underlinking in the first paragraph of the Meteorological History
   • As a result, the system had acquired enough characteristics to be considered a tropical cyclone at 0000 UTC on that day. Later that day, the storm strengthened enough to be upgraded to a hurricane at 1200 UTC. — This is all cited to the CLIQR database, which poses the same risks as trying to cite meteorological history from HURDAT. You can't do this without a better source.
   • the hurricane briefly intensified into a Category 2 hurricane — you really need to mention the SSHS.
   • Merchants and police boarded up their windows, which eased their anti-riot efforts.[6] — holy cliffhanger, Batman! You can't just say that without adding more background information.
   • Damage in the Burin Peninsula alone totaled to thousands of dollar, although the exact figure is unknown.[5] — dollars

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

   "Reference" should be "References".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   The main issue with the entire article is the reliance on the CLIQR database for many of its strongest claims. The database is being used in the same way as HURDAT was being used to reference records, which nowadays is considered to not meet verifiability requirements, and is considered borderline original synthesis. Most of this information is also included in the MWR article already in the page, but including it would need a considerable rewrite of the meteorological history. Additionally, the first reference should use {{cite journal}}, as it is a journal article, although that is beyond the scope of this GAN.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I am not convinced that the meteorological history is detailed enough for a storm with such an unusual process of cyclogenesis. It needs more information, particularly about the early stages of the storm. Since the storm didn't really do much damage, the emphasis of the article needs to be in the meteorological history.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The source for the infobox image is a 10-page PDF with 17 figures. More specificity would be appreciated here.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Ultimately, the issues meeting criterion 1a, 2, and 3 (but primarily 2) are too extensive for me to feel comfortable putting this article on hold. As such, I'm failing the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)