Talk:1989 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it. I can't believe it's been up for more than a month!

As always, try and go for more a more interesting opener. Say something that'll draw people in instead of boring them away. I have something in mind, but I'll let you try something in case it's better.
The data in the first sentence should appear in the lede, certainly. My qualms exist with the "11" and then "seven". When you have multiple numbers in a sequence, they should all be the same, in this case all spelled out.
"the mid-2000s decade" is sorta paradoxical, since a decade means 10 years and you're only referring to a few years.
Do you know what contributed to the above-normal activity? Was there an El Niño/La Niña? Any info on the larger scale nature of the season? It's sort of bland getting the summary in both the lede and in the body of the article.
Could you go any further into what Allison 89 did? It was the 2nd most impacting storm of the season, but just reading it, there's no real feel of what it did. No indication of houses destroyed, bridges washed away, etc.
In Erin's section, you refer to "meteosat". It seems odd seeing it lower-case. Could you wiki-link it and capitalize it so people have a better idea what it is? Also, the first paragraph of Erin is unsourced. Finally, you mention "Erin" in eight consecutive sentences. Try changing it up a bit.
"The eighth tropical depression of the season rapidly developed from a tropical wave that emerged from Africa two day prior." - prior to when?
"Heading northwestward, Felix eventually curved northward by September 1." - that's sort of bad flow there. Also, later, "Felix then curved to the west-northwestward" - pick either "to the WNW" or "curved WNWward"
"which was the third longest gestation time from development to hurricane status recorded in the Atlantic" - is tied for third place for some random record that significant to be worthy of mention? Also, I'm leery citing it to HURDAT, since it's difficult to actually prove unless you calculate it yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not somewhere where you can publish your own thought (even though I know I've been guilty it and probably inserted something like that in the past).
There's a fact error in Felix. It says it lasted until the 10th, but it became extratropical on the 9th. Please fix
"developed from a tropical wave 491 mi (790 km)" - why so exact?
Similar to Felix, there is false information in Gabrielle's section. The text implies it became extratropical and that was the end of that chapter, but the prelim reveals the true story on Gabrielle's tragic demise.
"Classified as Tropical Depression Eleven, as it headed generally westward, and intensified into Tropical Storm Hugo on September 11." - that's a sentence fragment
"Hugo was therefore, the most intense tropical cyclone of the 1989 Atlantic hurricane season." - why the comma there?
You start two sentences in Hugo's section with "after weakening" and have one right after that starting with "after" as well. Try rewording
You should really go more into what Hugo did (buildings destroyed, epic carnage, end of the world material), as opposed to listing the watches/warnings and the list of storms more costly than Hugo
"There were few observations on other islands, due to Hugo destroying observation stations a few days prior" - can you avoid saying "observation(s)" twice in the same sentence?
"Still October 3, it was noted that satellite imagery only indicated a swirl of low-level clouds, and the depression was then declared dissipated." - Huh? (at the beginning)
"Three people died when an automobile was blown off the Galveston, Texas seawall and State Highway 87 was washed away from High Island, Texas to the eastern portion of Sea Rim State Park." - is the first part of the sentence related to the second half? It reads weirdly. And as with Hugo and Allison, any more details on actual impact?

The article is decent, but it just doesn't feel ready. A lot of the prose just felt bland, no offense, and yes I realize this is only a GAN (and not FAC). 1989 isn't that long ago (within my lifetime), and I feel like some more work is needed before this becomes a GA. Thus, I am failing it instead of merely putting it on hold. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, WP:CALC permits the execution of basic calculations (counting days). Juliancolton (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I have no qualms with basic calculations like saying a storm lasted X number of days. However, it is beyond a routine calculation to go through all of HURDAT to verify that is indeed correct. You would have to look through every storm to make sure that is indeed true. That's as opposed to saying a storm existed further south than any other storm, which would be rather easy by way of a search for any lower latitude. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]