Talk:1969 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Sainsf in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I would like to review this interesting article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit

As I am new to reviewing cyclone-related articles for GAN I took a look at GAs on the same topic. My comments are based on observations from some such GAs.

  • The 1969 Atlantic hurricane season had the highest number... surpassed in 2005. I think the fact mentioned in this line would look good in the second or third line, but in the first line it makes it seem as if we had just left off the conversation on this and we are picking it up again.
  • Rather, the fact of the third line could be used in the first like : "The 1969 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest season since 1933" followed by the details on its duration. The line presently at first could be made the third line. Just take care not to link Atlantic hurricane season twice in the lead.
  • Neither the former or latter caused significant impact on land "Neither the former nor the latter..."
  • Why not link Georgia?
  • Hurricane Blanche was a small and short-lived tropical cyclones Why is cyclone in plural?
  • If Hurricane Camille was most significant then you should also add the important dates for it.
  • By important dates, I'm assuming you mean like peak intensity and landfall in Mississippi--12george1 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's right. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Central America has been linked twice in the lead
  • I think the note you have added in the lead about the damage figures should be placed in the main text.

Season summary edit

  • Could we have center align for the timeline?
  • I think at least in the first line of the main text the year 1969 deserves a mention. Even if it is already there in the second line, it should be there in the opening line.
  • Just curious, is it the convention in cyclone-related articles not to link terms like "tropical cyclones", "Storms" and "Category 3"?
  • I realized that I didn't link tropical cyclones yet, so I fixed that. As for the other two, I personally do not like to link to those since "storms" is the same as "tropical cyclone" and "Category 3" doesn't seem like it would be all that useful to link to especially if the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale is already linked to.--12george1 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Twelve of the eighteen named storms Elsewhere you say 18 instead of eighteen. Please check that you use either words or numbers for numbers, except for numbers 0-10 that must be in words.
  • Link Caribbean Sea, tropical cyclogenesis
  • with two tropical depression forming Plural
  • Camille and Debbie are duplinks

Storms edit

  • Very well-written.
  • You could link some of the media names and local areas.

There are many duplinks (listed here by section):

  • Tropical storm Anna: maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure
  • Hurricane Blanche: Sable Island
  • Hurricane Camille: 1935 Labor Day hurricane and Hurricane Andrew
  • Hurricane Debbie: Lesser Antilles, Project Stormfury, Hurricane Camille
  • Tropical storm Eve:low pressure area, rapid deepening
  • Tropical Depression Twenty-Nine: low pressure area, Georgia
  • Subtropical Storm One:Maine
  • Hurricane Laurie:Bay Islands Department
  • Hurricane Martha:maximum sustained winds
  • Other storms: Yucatán Peninsula, Lesser Antilles
I guess you missed five of them, I fixed them. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • References: Look reliable and sufficient in number. Are there no URLs for ref. nos. 15, 16, 26, 54?
  • These are references for newspaper articles that formerly had a url, but that url has since rotted. I will check but I highly doubt replacements urls will be available for the articles from The Daily Gleaner--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I believe the issues you have addressed are done with now. You can move on to the others. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article looks eligible for GA status now. So I shall promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply