Talk:Hurricane Fifi–Orlene/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Hurricane Fifi/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- For starters (which is why I'm putting it here), the article should be titled Fifi-Orlene, not just Fifi. Only the CPHC had the doubt whether they were one storm. The NHC's official stance is that they were one storm, both in the prelim report], and in the FAQs (which, I should note, does not have Hattie, which had similar uncertainty). The first paragraph of the lede should also reflect that.
Met. history is good. Watch out for some redundant wording (intensified is used in two consecutive sentences in the 2nd paragraph), but over all, it's not too bad. Speaking of the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph, could you tidy that up somewhat? You mention its westward track twice, intensification twice, and you should avoid saying "while south of Jamaica". Just "south of Jamaica". For impact, you say winds up to 132 mph - is that a gust? If so, mention that.
The impact is good (particularly Honduras). I suggest re-arranging the order. You have a nice chronology going, but then you throw in that the storm destroyed most of the country's banana crop. I'd save that for the last paragraph, which has a summary feel. The 4th paragraph in Honduras should be in the aftermath, given its nature. The last two sentences in Honduras should be combined, since they cover the same thing, just from different sources.
- For starters (which is why I'm putting it here), the article should be titled Fifi-Orlene, not just Fifi. Only the CPHC had the doubt whether they were one storm. The NHC's official stance is that they were one storm, both in the prelim report], and in the FAQs (which, I should note, does not have Hattie, which had similar uncertainty). The first paragraph of the lede should also reflect that.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The 3rd and 4th sentences of the first paragraph of the aftermath is just plain wrong. It implies that the naming lists in the 1970s were tweaked by adding male names, but in 1979 the naming list was completely new, so the reference to Frances doesn't work.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Repeating what I said above, it sort of avoids talking about Orlene, but NHC's stance is that they were one in the same. Also, more pressing, you don't have anything from the NHC storm wallets, which is a large cache of info. Have you checked through there to make sure you have everything important in the article? Some important met details are missing. What caused it to strengthen in the Caribbean (warm waters, low shear perhaps)? What caused it to take its west track, and for that matter, the southerly bump? You should mention more about Orlene's track. The last thing it said about the track was that Fifi moved westward and became Orlene, and then suddenly, Orlene was moving to the north-northeast.
I'd love if there was more impact for Jamaica or Hispaniola, but I know the limitations for the time period. Maybe try a Google News search for the date prior to the flooding disaster in Honduras? Were there any deaths outside in Belize or Nicaragua (just checking)? You mention the rainfall in Campeche twice (in elsewhere in Central America). Pick one of them and remove the other. Also, the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "response and assistance" section is random and is a bit unfocused. $46,000 is nothing, compared to the millions from other places. I'd remove it. I am curious, though. How long until the economy of Honduras improved? Also, I'd merge that rebuilding paragraph with the other one, and avoid adding the sub-sections. If you find impact elsewhere (ideally Guatemala or Mexico), then the sub-sections would work, but it looks awkward with them now.
- Repeating what I said above, it sort of avoids talking about Orlene, but NHC's stance is that they were one in the same. Also, more pressing, you don't have anything from the NHC storm wallets, which is a large cache of info. Have you checked through there to make sure you have everything important in the article? Some important met details are missing. What caused it to strengthen in the Caribbean (warm waters, low shear perhaps)? What caused it to take its west track, and for that matter, the southerly bump? You should mention more about Orlene's track. The last thing it said about the track was that Fifi moved westward and became Orlene, and then suddenly, Orlene was moving to the north-northeast.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- So, there are some things to be done. It really seems like Mexico is lacking. Most tropical cyclones that cross Mexico would cause some impact. You're missing from the prelim report that Acapulco had 11 inches of rainfall in 24 hours. That's pretty significant, surely some mudslides happened. I'll put it on hold so these comments can be addressed.
- Pass/Fail:
Nothing has been done, so I have to fail it. You should re-nominate it when these issues are addressed. It is good, but it's still lacking in places. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)