Talk:Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in the Mid-Atlantic region/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this, and I'll list my comments shortly. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All in all, it's a good read. I noticed a few typos, which I fixed. I'll put the GAN on hold for seven days for these comments to be addressed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the Infobox say "extratropical cyclone"? Jeanne was a TD through the Virginia. Also, its 40 mph winds didn't occur until after it emerged into the Atlantic Ocean, unless, were gale force winds associated with Jeanne anywhere in the region?
 * You should clarify where the Mid-Atlantic region is somewhere in the lede, ideally as early as possible. The first mention of even what country it is in (aside from the pic in the Infobox) doesn't occur until another image in the 2nd section, and not in prose until around the same time. That should be clarified.
 * Clarified the country part...as for where in the United States, the term is linked in the second paragraph of the lede, which should provide clarification. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There should still be a link to Mid-Atlantic states somewhere. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede is mostly just about the meteorological history. There should be more about the actual effects of the storm in the region.
 * "By September 24, the storm maintained a steady eastward track and reached Category 3 strength on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale" - either the timing is wrong (the storm was moving eastward through its loop before it was a C3), or something, but please clarify.
 * Changed to westward. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "as it moved off the coastline of southern New Jersey" - that's in the Background section, and it's a minor quibble, but that implies the storm moved over New Jersey. The track map shows that it did not, so just be sure to clarify. You also do the same in the preparations section.
 * Reworded, but could probably use further improvement. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, it still falsely implies that Jeanne moved over NJ. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relatively minor quibble about the background section, but there is inconsistent linking. You link New Jersey and Georgia, but not Florida. Even if it was because you link Florida in the lede, you still link Haiti, DR, PR, and Bahamas twice.
 * Linked Florida. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "As heavy rainfall moved into southeastern Virginia, the HPC issued flood warnings for several counties in the area" - I had to double take, as I thought the HPC was issuing flood warnings for the area around where the HPC was. If possible (and accurate), it'd be better to say something along the lines of "flood warnings in the Hampton Roads area". I'm assuming that, since that is southeastern Virginia, but some sort of clarification would be nice, since those were the first warnings for the area covered in the article.
 * You should probably link flood watch/warning, or at least explain what they are (does flood warning mean one is happening, or just a major threat of it happening).
 * Linked the first instance of each to Flood warning, which for some reason explains what all of the United States flood products are, whether watches or warnings. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shortly before 12:00 pm EDT, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued a tornado watch for areas around the Delaware Bay" - the timing means nothing. There is no indication of the date (the previous paragraph mentioned two dates), and nowhere else in the article do you mention such specific timing. It'd be better if you said, "While the storm was moving through southeastern Virginia, the SPC...", or something like that.
 * The first sentence of the "Impact" section (effects were relatively minor) completely contradicts the lede (overall damage was severe). Please address ;)
 * "Most damage was confined to flash flooding" - that implies that the flash flooding was the damage, but damage implies effects of the storm on property or agriculture. Do you mean "most damage resulted from flash flooding"?
 * Reworded as such. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Virginia, heavy rainfall from the storm fell along the mountainous regions along the western portion of the commonwealth." - please fix awkward wording (my emphasis). Also, couldn't you just say "In the western portion of Virginia", instead of mentioning commonwealth (which some people might be confused by).
 * I think I fixed this, although this might need a look because I can't tell whether it should be "portion" or "portions". Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some areas recorded between 6 and 7 in (150 and 180 mm) of rain,[12] peaking at 6.65 in (169 mm) in Woolwine" - if areas recorded between 6 and 7 inches, how could the peak be less than 7 inches?
 * I think I took care of this by rephrasing it to "Some areas recorded over 6 in (150 mm) of rain, peaking at..." Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Roanoke, the Roanoke River" - gah, I hate the redundancy, but I know it's legitimate. I think it'd help if Roanoke was an actual city (ie link it).
 * Linked both Roanoke and Roanoke River, plus added the comma, which seemed to be missing. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "A nearby hotel required evacuation and businesses near the river were completely submerged underwater" - that's sort of two separate thoughts. Try rewording so you don't have the open "and" (which leads me to think what else the hotel required, not that something else happened).
 * I believe I have fixed this. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Virginia section, you have two sentences mentioning road closures, but they're on opposite sides of the paragraphs. Try moving them around so similar topics are discussed at the same time.
 * I think I fixed that with this edit, but this could use a double check to see if I did what you were intending. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "$50 million was left in losses" - seeing as that's the first damage total, you should add a 2004 USD, and if possible add the auto-year updating inflation thingy.
 * You should probably link the Fujita scale somewhere in there, where you mention the F1 tornado.
 * Done. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any estimates on how many homes were damaged? The Maryland and Delaware sections don't really describe how/where the damage occurred, outside of the tornadoes.
 * Also, be sure all of the previous comments on the talk page were addressed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to gate crash the GAN, but I needed something to do on wiki and figured that it would be simple enough to find a FAC or GAN and fix a few of the problems mentioned. I hope I helped, but if I caused more harm than good on any of my fixes, please let me know just so I know not to make the same kind of fix in the future. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, my only nitpick is that in the preparations section, it says "the HPC issued flood warnings for several counties in the area" and "the HPC discontinued all flood and flash flood watches associated with the storm". To the best of my knowledge, local NWS offices are responsible for this task. If the HPC was the one issuing/canceling, then it might be good to clarify why, and if they weren't it needs corrected. Other than that I see no issues with the article other than the ones I left unfixed above. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to fail it. There are too many things left undone. I asked that the earlier comments on the talk page get addressed, but they weren't. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note, it is a pretty good article, and not much is needed to become a GA. However, with the lack of work being done to it, I had to fail it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)