Talk:Hurricane Opal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KN2731 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article, unfortunately, needs a lot of work to be brought up to GA standard. There are several paragraphs without inline citations, and link rot has affected the impact sections significantly. Most of the article was written in 2007 and hasn't really changed since then. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Haven't really done a thorough prose review since there are more glaring issues below. At a glance, nothing really stands out, though word choice could be improved in places: e.g. "primordial depression" in the MH seems off.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Citation style is inconsistent. Many citations are missing information, e.g. publisher, author, date, especially all the NCDC Event Reports. There are several nearly bare refs, e.g. refs 15, 21, 23, 25, 29, 35, 57, 67, 68, and 69.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
For the NCDC Event Reports, most, if not all of them, lead to completely different events from the one described. As such, none of them actually support the text. Taking refs 60 and 61 as an example: they're supposed to be high wind events in New York state on October 5, 1995; however, the archive links lead me to hail in Oklahoma on April 10, 1994, and December 10, 1995, which are completely off.
Furthermore, there are large swathes of unsourced information:
A gale watch was also in effect for Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the southern sections of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Opal also spawned an F2 tornado [...] a flat open space opened up along U.S. Highway 98. Yes, this is more than half the paragraph.
Damage was heavy far inland, all the way to Montgomery, where sustained winds reached 90 mph (140 km/h).
More than 4000 trees were knocked down within the city of Atlanta [...] remained without power through the weekend.
Beginning the evening of October 4 [...] their root systems were loose. Paragraph isn't sourced.
Damage in West Virginia totaled out to only $5,000.
In New Jersey, thunderstorms with heavy rain [...] 4.10 inches (104 mm) in Pequannock. The whole paragraph isn't sourced.
The leftover system of Opal also spawned a gale warning for Nova Scotia.
Rainfall stretched out to the area of Nova Scotia, but only up to 0.5 inches (13 mm) was reported there.
The entire "Retirement" section.
It's possible that some of the cited Event Reports would support the information here, but I can't verify that since their archives don't link to the correct reports.
C. It contains no original research:
The following statements need sources: "Hurricane Opal was the most intense category 4 Atlantic hurricane on record", "916 hPa (27.05 inHg), a pressure typical for a Category 5 hurricane", "In subsequent seasons, 'O' names would be given to ten other tropical cyclones."

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's copyvio detector has a 24.2% similarity, which after taking a closer look seems like close paraphrasing. With half the references being inaccessible and several others being images, I can't say if there are more copyvios.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Despite most of Opal's deaths occurring in Mexico and Central America, there seems to be quite little information on them, (including nothing on preparations).

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Nothing much to see here.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Only reverts are over addition of unsourced information/original research. The bits remaining in the article have been highlighted above.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Captions outside of the Meteorological History need work.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Since the article is far from meeting GA criteria 2, and significant work is needed to repair the citations and address the unsourced parts of the article, I have little choice but to fail this GAN. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]