Talk:1959 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I will be taking on this review. Please give me some time, as I might have to leave before I'm done with the initial review. You will not see any further edits until I have completed the full review, which should be done sometime within the next five hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

- Please check to make sure that the copyediting that I preformed on the lead section did not render anything incorrect. I don't think any of the rest of my CEs changed anything substantive.

It was good, except you made the structure kinda choppy and asymmetrical.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- Please contextualize the ACE rating. I know from clicking on accumulated cyclone energy that 77 is a 'normal' season, however that information should be in the article (and cited, of course).

Added--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- For Hurricane Three I believe that a relief effort featuring the Pope and the Queen is of sufficient importance that it warrants a sentence in this article.

Added--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- In the Tropical Storm Edith section, something is missing in the second sentence, "Less than three hours later, while located east of the Windward Islands.".

It was missing that a tropical depression developed less than three hours later.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- Same section: For "There was "considerable doubt" if a circulation ever existed." is there still doubt? If so, the sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. If not, the sentence needs to be changed to include the general consensus.

Not sure about this. I mean that was way back in 1959. HURDAT hasn't got to 1959 yet, so I guess the consensus for now is that a circulation did exist.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- The section on Hurricane Flora is choppily written. I think you'd be able to fix this by restructuring the sentences that include the word "thus".

Eh, I don't think that can be done. Plus, there is also two sentences with the word "thus".--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- For Hurricane Gracie, do hurricanes "deepen"? (Sentence prompting this is "It deepened further to a Category 2, on September 23, before weakening later that day.".)

"Deepening" is a term that means to strengthen, like rapid deepening--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

- For Tropical Storm Irene, there's a large area of precipitation (spanning several states), but only Florida and Georgia are covered in the write up. Did the storm go through other states or is the map covering unrelated precipitation as well?

There just wasn't impact reported in other states (save for rainfall). Notice Florida and Georgia have the heaviest rainfall, so there was flooding in those two states.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Let's go with yes

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: I have nothing but the highest respect for your work, but if you're not copyediting your work before you submit it for review, you really need to. There were several instances here where words were missing (1, 2, plus the sentence pointed out above). Now I honestly don't really care about copyediting as I review things, but some people just don't like to do that. You barely leave things for me to point out at all (a good thing), but you've got the potential to get so good at this that GANs will largely become a rubber stamp process if you can nail the copyediting issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments after second review: Okay, most of those changes are good, but could you please explain why you removed the 'Records' section? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• It was not sourced and "trivial". Plus, the citations normally used to verify sections such as that are now considered WP:OR.--12george1 (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I can respect that argument. I think that it's basic enough that it falls under "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue", but it's not basic enough that I'm going to fight over it. I've promoted this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)