Talk:Hurricane Frances/GA2

Hurricane Frances

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I initially passed this article several months ago but after several discussions with other editors, this article is not up to GA standards. For this article, being a retired hurricane, the lead is too short, the Meteorological history is choppy, not enough preparations or impact, and the article is lacking aftermath entirely. The overall scope of the article needs to be greatly expanded as there is too little info to match up with the $12 billion damage total. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it would require too much work to keep it at GA status. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem with the preparations section specifically...no mention of the watches/warnings at all. I'll work on it some this week...just got back in town. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I added watches/warnings to the preparations section and reworked and added some information into the lead. The met history and references have been reworked in an attempt to more fully comply with GA criteria. Adding additional impact/aftermath is going to be an issue because of Jeanne following along Frances' path 4 weeks later. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Jeanne, FEMA should have a lot of info regarding the aftermath which is missing entirely. Cyclonebiskit 20:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I have to use to semantics to understand what you mean. What separates impact from aftermath for one of these articles? Despite helping numerous articles get to GA over the past couple years (some of which were for individual storms), I'm still unclear as to the difference, and the project page does make this distinction either. To me, aftermath would be what changes to the society occurred due to Frances within the impacted regions. Is this what you mean, or something else? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, impact refers to what the storm did to physical things (houses, buildings, met. stats), while aftermath is what the storm did to humans and society (how people got their lives back to normal, aid). That's just really general, though. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now cyclonebiskit's comments make sense to me. Aid should be findable within FEMA issuances, as he suggested. I don't think we're going to find any societal impact, since Jeanne traversed the same area soon afterwards. Let me know how the progress is going, so I have an idea how much farther I have to go edit-wise. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One quick thing - don't be afraid to include a bit of Jeanne in there for the aftermath. If you have sources that provide aftermath for both Frances and Jeanne, then it can appear in both articles. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The aftermath section should be complete. Let me know if it's good enough for GA. Remember, length in and of itself is not a GA requirement, completeness is. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the aftermath section is up to stuff for GA standards but the impact section is still lacking. For a storm that caused $12 billion in damages, there doesn't seem to be much reason for why it caused that much damage. There should be a lot of useful information on the NCDC Website. Cyclonebiskit 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do for the US impact section later this week, perhaps tomorrow. How's the lead progressing? The meteorological history? The preparations section? If it matters, the article is 60% larger than it was before the GAR. Need some feedback. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look over the article for you David and ur doing well - just one thing though if youre going to pipe a link to your workplace pipe one ot the NHC lol :P Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can with this article, adding additional information I found outside the NHC TCR with published sources online. This is one system where the TCR was of little use to the impact section. Let me know if you all know of any specific information that is not currently contained within the article, or if there are still format issues, etcetera, which prevent GA class for this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied. Good work there DR! This looks like a good article now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that :) Nicely done Cyclonebiskit 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As Cyclonebiskit initiated this individual reassessment, strictly speaking he/she should close it. However, the result seems an unambiguous keep, so I'll record that in the article history. Geometry guy 19:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)