Jump to content

Talk:January 1982 California floods/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fourth and upcoming review to be this one! Looking forward to delivering your first GA, ChrisWx! Reviewing will take a few days, and since it's weather-related, I'm at least in my comfort zone reviewing this. ;) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I think overall it's well-written! There may be a few spots where the grammar might need fixing but otherwise it looks good! I'll note any grammar issues in my comments section.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    I do think the lead needs some work, especially expansion. I'll explain this more in-depth in my comments!
  2. 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:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyright concerns; nothing on Earwig's Copyvio Detector Tool!
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No concerns about unstability!
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Only image used in the article is in the public domains, therefore no issues!
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I'd remove the time from the only image's caption; I think the date for the image is fine!
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • Remove citation for the fatalities and damage totals in lead – this is already noted further in the article, per MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Consider expanding the lead! Only two sentences in the lead? I'd expand it with impacts stemming from the floods!
  •  Done With a few notes:
  • I included especially in Santa Cruz and Marin counties while describing the impacts from isolated communities per the information I included regarding multiple places in Santa Cruz County, as well as some places in Marin County in the Impact section. If you think this line should be modified or removed, then I will not object to that.
  • I say over 7,500 homes and businesses were damaged, with more than 250 destroyed. per WP:CALC, adding together the >6,000 homes damaged by the flooding and the 1,500 businesses damaged, as well as the 231 homes + 65 businesses destroyed.
If there are any problems with the new lead that need to be addressed, please let me know. Courtesy ping @Tails Wx:. Thanks, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ChrisWx! I did make several changes and copyedits to the lead here! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • "and causing storms to form" – how about "producing thunderstorms"?
  • In the "Impact" section – "resulting in $66 million in damage, as well as 25 deaths from landslide impacts" – how about "resulting in $66 million in damage and 25 fatalities"?
  • "where 14 people died" – I'd say "where 14 people were killed".
  • "As a result of the flooding, landslides, and isolation of homes which had occurred in the county, 22 people were killed, 50 people were injured, 400 people were displaced from their homes, and 300 houses were damaged, with 150 being destroyed." – why not split this sentence? It's a bit too long; try "As a result of the flooding, landslides, and isolation of homes which had occurred in the county, 22 people were killed, 50 people were injured, and 400 people were displaced from their homes. Additionally, 300 houses were damaged, with 150 being destroyed."
  • "severely damaging its water systems, and leaving it isolated for multiple days" – re-word to "severely damaging its water systems, isolating it for several days".
  • "prevent people who didn't live in the region" – why not try "prevent people who did not reside in the region"? Also, where is the "region", Marin County itself or surrounding areas?
  • "In a house where children were trapped inside following a landslide, a large crane was used to clear the rubble and attempt to rescue them" – this sentence reads a bit wonky; how about "A large crane was used to clear the rubble and rescue children from a house that was impacted by a landslide".
  • "most significantly damaged, receiving up to 6 feet (1.8 m) of water." – "receiving" to "being inundated in".
  • "for nearby residents' safety" – try "for the safety of nearby residents".
  • "100 snow slides were" – isn't "snow slides" one word, or am I missing something?

That's all I've got, courtesy ping ChrisWx! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns are addressed, happy to pass this review and promote this article to a GA! Thanks, and congratulations on your first GA, ChrisWx! :D ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing

[edit]

@Tails Wx, @ChrisWx, just a couple of comments on the GA review. I'm not sure that a post from a random Patch.com contributor should be considered reliable. However, that source cites a Santa Cruz Sentinel article (link) which could be used. There's also a typo in in the Niekerken cite (should be Chronicle). If you could address these issues, that would be great and I should then be able to asses the review for the GA backlog drive. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @Ganesha811! I've taken care of both issues here. I apologize for not realizing and noticing this earlier. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_1982_California_floods/GA1&oldid=1212839497"