Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Maria (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Maria (2011) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Clean Up

[edit]

Hurricane Maria's article is pretty pathetic...it needs more sources, more writing, and better quality. If nobody is willing to do it anytime soon, I shall. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to write up the meteorological history section tonight when I get home from school (I'm commuting back home on weekends, and I'll have time to do the whole thing tonight). If you'd like to try to find more sources on the preparations and impact, I'd encourage you to do so, as that's been the really hard part for me to find anything. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is much missing from the impact links, especially for Puerto Rico and the USVI. The one who added the info simply took one sentence from those links. When I looked one the link for Puerto Rico impact ([1]), there is probably enough for at least eight sentences. However, currently this is what we have for PR impact "As Maria bypassed Bermuda on September 15, the outerbands of the storm produced brief squalls on the island".--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to clean up the article some right now, but leaving the Impacts section up to you, haha. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Igor, part II, and throw in an actual landfall on Newfoundland. At least Maria's much smaller and less rainy, at least while it doesn't go extratropical. NL hasn't fixed all the Igor damage yet! But on a WP note, does anyone have a proper mention that no one was expecting further development until just a day ago? - Cameron Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.11 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not true. Even as early as September 11, the NHC had the official forecast as reaching hurricane strength by the 14th and maintaining as such on the 15th.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Maria (2011)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got this one. Will post review itself in 16-24 hours from now. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before it's properly reviewed, just a head's up. Most of the Puerto Rican section is unsourced. It had previously been sourced to a link from FEMA, but that link did not contain all of the other info. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Acceptable
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.
- When you read this, drop everything and go thank Hylian Auree for her copyedit.
b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references: Needs work
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.
- "Operationally, however, the NHC kept the system classified as a tropical cyclone and never downgraded it to a disturbance." is not supported by, and appears to be directly contradicted by, the Brennan source [1].
Operationally means while the storm is active. The TCR is not operational. This is an example of operational. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.
c. no original research: Needs work
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.
- See 2a.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.
b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
- Holding off on this until 5 is responded to.

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Question Acceptable

- When I looked at this yesterday, there was no mention of the 1.3 million in damage (this edit). That's a pretty significant thing to leave out until after a GAN is started. Before I go too much further with this, I want your assurances that large chunks of additional information aren't going to materialize while I work.

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct: Needs work Acceptable
- Please go fetch your friendly neighborhood HurricaneFan25 and have him properly fill out the Template:Information on the Puerto Rico rain diagram (again).
 Done Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Acceptable
- N/A
b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable


Comments after the initial review:

Most of this is being held until I get an answer to the concern at 5. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll admit, I forgot to check the Event log for Maria before submitting it. However, I do not believe anymore significant changes will be made to the article, I think I got everything. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from 12george1
Comments after second review
- One sourcing issue, detailed in 2a, needs to be dealt with. The Hylian Auree copyedit, not to be overly blunt, was needed. I was kind of dragging my heals on doing this review, hoping that you'd come clean up this article after the Colin GAN, and Hylian Auree really came in for you. Make sure you thank her. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being exceedingly harsh on this review. Auraem copyedited it, meaning that she fixed minor issues with...It isn't like the article had major problems like you are making it out to be. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but I expect not to have to do extensive copyedits for GANs. Perhaps I've been spoiled, but most of the GANs I've done were copyedited, or had prose in otherwise almost perfect shape, before the article was nominated. If you say that there's not a problem at 2a, I honestly don't know enough to argue. I suppose I'll promote this, as there's nothing else holding this back. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROMOTED I guess. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Maria (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Maria_(2011)&oldid=1211228258"