Talk:Hurricane Odile (1984)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The 15th named storm and 12th hurricane of the active 1984 Pacific hurricane season" - Please spell-out 15th and 12th to fifteenth and twelfth, respectively.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"about 297 kilometers (185 miles) south of Acapulco" - For consistency with the rest of the article, switch the miles and the kilometers so that the miles is outside the parenthesis.
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"active 1984 Pacific hurricane season developed from a tropical disturbance" - It appears that you are missing a word here, which I would assume to be "Odile" between "season" and "developed". After adding the word "Odile", place a comma following it.
- It makes sense to me, or am I going insane? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
  - This is how it currently reads: "the active 1984 Pacific hurricane season developed from a tropical disturbance"; I don't know about you, but I don't think the 1984 PHS, as a whole, developed from a tropical disturbance.--12george1 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all the storms did, so I guess it is correct either way. :P Anyway, re-worded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a rather vague summary of the impact. Why not add info about the 900 homes damaged, the evacuation of 7,000 people, 80% of crops damaged in Guerrero, ect.?
Added a little more. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Six deaths were reported, and two people were reported missing." - Use should avoid using the word "reported" twice in one sentence. I would suggest re-wording to something such as this: "Overall, the storm caused six deaths occurred, and two other people were reported missing."
- Incorporated your suggestion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It weakened to a Category 1 hurricane early on September 22." - Either I am missing something, the track map is incorrect, or the newspaper article is wrong. While the storm was approaching the coast, you can see that the storm suddenly weakened from a Category 2 to a tropical storm near landfall, skipping Category 1 intensity, or very quickly passing through it.
You are correct, actually, the newspaper is based off of real-time data. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"According to press reports in Mexico City, officials warned that illness may occur due to a lack of of drinking water could occur." - I don't see any need for the words "could occur" on the end.
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"7,000 people, and did leave 20,000 families without any water service." - Technically this isn't a grammar error. However, it would be better to say: "7,000 people, and left 20,000 families without any water service."
Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in the state of Guerrero was damaged." ----> "in the state of Guerrero were damaged."
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph of the impact section, use start three consecutive sentences with the word "the".
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"The tourism resorts in these areas were also affected by Hurricane Norbert just a week after Odile hit." - How can that be? Norbert dissipated only four days after Odile. So how could the tourism resorts be affected one week later?
Removed, ref does not back that up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"maximum rainfall total were recorded " - Reword to either "maximum rainfall total was recorded" or "maximum rainfall totals were recorded".
Did the former. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the country, rainfall fell in 2201 locations." - Is this really necessary? We have never mentioned facts like these on other tropical cyclone articles.
- Don't see anything wrong with having it, WP is not paper, BTW I have included that before in other articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any more impact from Spanish language sources?
- No, everything I get is from the 2008 storm/mirror sites. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references have accessdates
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reference #1, you are missing the publisher, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Don't see any need for it in Template:Cite journal, at least for GA status, none listed in WP:MWR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reference #3, the title is incorrect (Hurricane Odile - September 16-24, 1984), the author is missing (Roth, David M.), the date is incorrect (April 2, 2007), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shouldn't be in the work parameter.
- Why should NOAA not be in the work thingy? but fixed the rest. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
On reference #4, you need to include the Associated Press. You can do this by adding the "|agency=" parameter to cite news, and then type in or copy/cut and paste it there.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat the process on reference #5, and then add the author parameter, with the author being "Levi, Isaac B."
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have more for later.--12george1 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues:
- Without looking at the infobox, I am unable to to determine when the storm dissipated/ETed.
  - Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "in flooding that flooded 30 highways" - Thanks you adding a better summary of impact to the lead. However, there is two problems here. First, you should say "flooding that flooded"; it probably should be reworded to something like "in flooding that inundated 30 highways". Second, the storm did not flood "30 highways", it flooded "30 miles of highways".
  - I can't find a very good way to word this, I honestly don't know what "inundated" mean, so I found a way to word it, not sure if it makes sense though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "forced the evacuation of 40,000 homes." - Hmm, I didn't know that homes could evacuate. I think you mean: "forced the evacuation of 40,000 people".
  - Heh, magic :P. Jk, fixed, I probably was in a middle of a mental lapse when fixing it (as usual for me). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How come a system went from a tropical disturbance to a tropical depression on the following day.
  - Did not see anything about that in the MWR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "While maintaining peak intensity for a day, the cyclone" - Hold on, on the track map, it shows that the storm was a Category 2 hurricane (its peak intensity) for only two dots (12 hours), so why do you say it maintained its peak intensity for a day, which implies at 24 hours?
  - A half a day then. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The impact is rather disorganized and has a few errors:
  - The first sentence looks like something that happened after the storm; also the lack of drinking water isn't the only reason for a possible illness.
    - It happened after the pre-Odile floods and before Odile. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rainfall information should probably be mentioned first, because that is how the flooding was caused. Though I would first reword that sentence with the peak rainfall total from "The maximum rainfall totals were recorded in Costa Azul and Acapulco, where it caused over 24.73 in (628 mm) of rainfall." to "Heavy rainfall occurred in southwestern Mexico, especially in Costa Azul and Acapulco, where precipitation peaked at 24.73 in (628 mm)."
Did a hybrid of the two. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Unless there is specifics on the 6 deaths (such as locations and how the fatalities occurred), you should move the total toward the end of the impact.
- Why? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reference #4 does not state that 40,000 people evacuated from Acapulco.
  - Another mental lapse (facepalm), it is 7,000, stupid YE. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- The reference issues have not been addressed/fixed.
  - They should be done know. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention earlier, "R.L. Cross" stands for "Robert L. Cross", so change that to "Cross, Robert L."
  - Done. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, what's the status of this article? I see you recently gave it a copyedit. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see the recent copyedit made. However, there are still many problems with this article, and it some cases, I don't even know where to begin. Despite that extensive review I gave it, I am still unsatisfied with the article. If I were you, I would check a recently passed GA just to give you an idea of what a GA really looks like; you should especially learn how to write a better lead. So you wanna know my decision for this article? Fail. Sorry, but I am no longer rubber-stamping the articles you nominate for GA (in contrast to last year) that are either of poor quality or little is done to fix the problems. No offense YE, but when I first looked at this article, it looked like it would be generous calling the article C-class, IMO. Sorry, but as I had earlier, I am going to fail this article.--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, but thanks for making a decision. Thanks for the review, and I'm very sorry if I wasted your time. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]