Talk:Hurricane Paul (1982)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main problem with this article is the prose quality, which falls short of proper English in several places:

"making it's second landfall" ~ should be "its"
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The origins of Paul were moving slowly over" ~ the use of "origins" here seems strange, it would seem more natural to use the "original [something]" or similar or rephrase it differently
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"initialled" ~ I don't understand its use here. The definition I would use is "Mark or sign (a document) with one's initials, esp. in order to authorize or validate it". *"Advisories" also seems strange here (used at least twice); it links to a disambiguation page on the second occurrence which isn't particularly helpful in explaining what you mean
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Some uses of hyphens when you mean dashes (date ranges, for example)
- They were only a couple, but I fixed them.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a space before the ref tag in at least one instance
- I fixed this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"50,000 humans" sounds odd; I think '50,000 people' would be better - humans would be acceptable if there were an obvious need to clarify with regards to animals of some sort, but there isn't.
- I like my original wording since "humans" is boring old and dead 9.9, but fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"16 bridges were destroy" ~ this is not correct English
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more.

A quick scan over the article with regards to the other criteria seems OK. However, the article desperately needs a copyedit. With the problems outlined above, I suggest requesting one off the guild, or else a determined effort to bring the article into line. I'm putting the article on hold so this can happen; in the meantime, I'll be assessing for the other criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think addressed the above and did some minor copyediting myself.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. This review is at GA2, suggesting that there was one before, but it's not at GA1. Was there one? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I haven't updated this is because I was expecting, well, more. While you've addressed what I picked up, it was really the whole thing that needed copyediting. There are still problems, like "After five days of rainfall, rivers greatly overflooded, and resulted in severe mudslides." (sense), "resulting in Paul to reach a peak intensity" (grammar) "was estimated at $100 million" (lacks a period/full stop at the end). The whole thing has errors like that. I can keep the article on hold further, or I can fail it and you can renominate it when you're done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on hold through Saturday. Ill try and do some more copyediting tomorrow. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edited the article. If you could look through it again, that'd be great! Thanks ★ Auree _talk 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the article yet again on my watchlist. I feel I can't make a judgement now although it looks favourable, so I'm requesting a second opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

The article is riddled with grammatical errors, misplaced commas, unclear phrasing. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout, sentence by sentence by someone with a good command of written English, clearly fails criterion #1a at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. While it certainly falls short from brilliant prose, I believe in its current state it's an overall cohesive article. I re-copyedited it, and there were a few misplaced commas as far as I could tell; I don't see any patent grammatical errors that stick out enough to fail the criteria. If you could point out at least a few instances, I might get a better understanding of what you're implying. ★ Auree _talk 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, give a more detailed review please. Thank you. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most obvious examples:

Hurricane Paul was a particularly deadly and destructive Pacific hurricane, killing a total of 1,696 people and causing $1.156 billion in damage during its formative stage. needless comma, suggest change to "which killed"

The hurricane then commenced accelerating toward the northeast, and upon doing so it reached peak winds of 110 mph (175 km/h). "Commenced accelerating" - "accelerated" Better to simplify

Minor preferences like these shouldn't be detrimental to a GAN. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a preference, it is a matter of correct word choice. Why not write: "The hurricane then accelerated towards the northeast reaching peak wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h)." Clearer and simpler. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks to produce severe flooding, and multiple mudslides impacted the region. Clumsy - "impacted"?

What's wrong with impacted? Nevertheless, I'll just change it to affected. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks producing severe flooding and multiple mudslides." Clearer and simpler. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout Central America, at least 1,432 people perished due to these effects, with most of the fatalities occurring in El Salvador and Guatemala; another 225 deaths were attributed to the depression in southern Mexico. Near the area of landfall further north in that country, Paul was responsible for moderate damage and 24 fatalities. Clumsy and confusing.

Tweaked. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The precursor disturbance to Paul—an area of low barometric pressure—was first noted near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua on September 15, accompanied by a large amount of thunderstorm activity. Needlessly complex, rewrite in plain English

This is a meteorology article. You're going to have to expect complexities, and compared to some other storm articles this isn't that complex at all. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An area of low barometric pressure and thunderstorm activity was first noted on September 15, near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. This was the precursor disturbance of Paul." I don't expect poor prose in any GA. As it appears that you can't see this, I question why you are copy-editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your suggestion seems incredibly stubby. I'll tweak it around a bit. ★ Auree _talk 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two days after the first issuance. "issuance"?

Removed that part. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

though the death toll was initially believed to be at 289, "at"?

Honest mistake. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout southern Mexico, floods from the precursor depression to Paul killed another 225 people. "of Paul" is better English

Actually, it doesn't matter. They're both quite acceptable. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the aftermath of the storm, the Government of El Salvador received criticism for failing to keep the public well informed. for failing to keep the public well informed. "were critized" is better than "received criticism"

This is a GAN, not an FAC. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Use plain English. These apply to all Wikipedia articles, whatever their status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It provided over $300,000 in aid and declare a state of emergency; "and declared" presumably

Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

though exact information on the storm during the time is unavailable What time is this?

Clarified. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the threat of the hurricane, an alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur. this type of phrasing which is common throughout the article is needlessly clumsy. Simpler and better to say something like "A hurricane alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur." And a date is needed for this.

The specific date/time is not known, and no offence, but your wording changes the meaning as it gives me the impressing that tropical cyclone watches and warnings were issued, when they were not.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

So what sort of alert was issued? Please make it clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not say. It said "The weather service [EPHC] issued an alert for Baja California". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Overall, very poor prose which fails to flow. Needs thorough copy-editing by someone who can write good plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more thorough when I give it another copyedit. ★ Auree _talk 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it might be better to get an uninvolved editor to copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

So...what are the latest developments of this article...Is it good article worthy or not? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to take a look yourself. All issues have been addressed, but I am not sure if there is more.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I believe this remains my call. I see a clear improvement since Jezhotwell's comment, and so now believe this article should pass unless there are any clear objections. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]