Talk:Hurricane Maria (2011)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments from 12george1

• "that moved westward from Nigeria to Senegal on September 1." - That is not what the TCR said
  • Yes, I realize this George. :)
• "a tropical storm watch was hoised for the island" - "hoised" ----> "hoisted"
  • Fixed.
• Why is Michael Brennan the only author with a middle initial?
  • Corrected.
• You are missing the dates for references 2, 4, and 5 --12george1 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching this all George. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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