Talk:Hurricane Alex (2010)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ★ Auree  talk 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Comments


 * Lede
 * "[...] to form in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. Forming [...]" – tweak for less repetitiveness
 * "and produced over $1.8 billion (2010 USD) of damages." – odd wording
 * Switched words. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fourteen people were killed in Central America during Alex's first landfall as a result of flooding" → Fourteen people were killed in Central America as a result of flooding during Alex's first landfall.
 * Fixed to your suggestion. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "the outer rainbands of the storm" – the storm is already mentioned a bit often, so I think "outer rainbands" would suffice.
 * Fixed to your suggestion. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "killed three in Acapulco, one person in Oaxaca, and one person in Chiapas." – I'd suggest "killed three people in Acapulco, one person in Oaxaca, and another in Chiapas" for a bit more prose diversity.
 * Fixed to your suggestion. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the succeeding sentence... "deaths," "deaths," "deaths," and "deaths"
 * Removed the plethora of deaths. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a storm "produces" outages; it causes or triggers them.
 * Changed to "triggered". Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Meteorological history
 * "thunderstorm activity spread across Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and eastern Cuba" – to avoid prose cluttering, change all of those locations to just Greater Antilles?
 * "remained favorable for eventual development." – It's mentioned that it had already developed prior. I suggest saying redevelopment
 * "had gradually became" – grammar
 * The article mentions the development of a low-level circulation initially, but then goes on to say a surface low developed by 1800 UTC. It once again mentions the circulation in the subsequent sentence. A bit later, you again mention a surface low, and that its formation was confirmed on June 25. Was it not initially confirmed to have existed, or was it a different low? Are the two circulations mentioned the same, and which is associated with the low that apparently formed after the establishment of a low-level circulation or what? I'm a bit confused as to what's going on here.
 * "indicatedthe" – messy
 * "become tropical depression" – messy
 * "to inhibit the storm" is a bit redundant, since it has already been mentioned that the anticyclone is positioned over the storm.
 * "itobtained" –
 * Be consistent with time notations throughout the mh. Initially, the article only notes UTC times (which is preferable and recommended), but then goes on to include CDT times.
 * Judging from the first two paragraphs, I think this still needs a thorough copy-edit. ★ Auree  talk 03:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Preparations
 * Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula – I don't think Mexico needs to be linked again
 * A tropical storm warning was posted – posted?
 * for the duration of the storm → during the storm
 * "Thirteen shelters were opened in Reynosa,[37] twenty-two in Matamoros, and ten in San Fernando; a total of 3,000 people sought protection from the storm in the three shelters" – which three shelters? There are a total of 45 shelters mentioned.
 * "90 shelters were opened throughout the state" – any way you can avoid opening the sentence with a number?
 * "which would potentially cause" – not too sure about this wording
 * That's all for the preparations section. ★ Auree  talk 04:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed all of the prose issues listed, except for the shelter thing... I have no idea what's up with that... Juliancolton (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "three shelters" thing. It should have been "shelters in the three municipalities". Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 10:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied. One more quibble for the MH:
 * "At 0200 UTC on July 1, the National Hurricane Center indicated that Alex had made landfall with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph (165 km/h), gusts of 125 mph (205 km/h) and an unusually low central pressure of 947 millibars (28.0 inHg) in the municipality of Soto la Marina in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.[25][26] After the storm, this intensity estimate was revised to sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) a central pressure of 946 millibars (27.9 inHg)." – I feel this part doesn't match the rest of the MH's standards. Any way we could tighten it up a bit? The wikilinking here also seems a bit excessive. ★ Auree  talk 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Impact: This section is a bit over-detailed, but probably nothing detrimental to GA status
 * "Be consistent in whether inch or mm is mentioned first, and how you note inch. Right now, there's a mix of in and inches throughout the section
 * "The system produced rainfall across the Greater Antilles in the central Caribbean Sea" – which system? Alex or its precursor?
 * "the majority of whom were temporarily relocated" – I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct
 * "Although it has stayed relatively clear of the site, the approach of Tropical Storm Alex did cause BP to delay by a week plans to increase oil capture from the leak" – this sentence reads a bit oddly to me
 * "In Chiapas, one person, from Guatemala, died and four more were injured when their bus rolled over as it traveled over a damaged highway" – same as above, especially with all the commas
 * "The storm's most significant effect fro in the region was excessive rainfall, which was reported throughout the region" – typo, plus slightly repetitive
 * "between 97.25 mm (3.829 in) and 315.5 mm (12.42 in) were reported at weather stations statewide" – mm of what? Also, don't we note inch totals first?
 * "The pluviometer at Estanzuela reported that a total of 890 mm (35 in) of rainfall were recorded;[71] in Arroyo Seco, in San Pedro Garza García, 588 mm (23.1 in) of precipitation was recorded" – inconsistency: should it be x in (x mm) of rainfall/prec was recorded, or were recorded?
 * "About 80% of Matamoros was under water, including at least 400 neighbourhoods, some flooded under a foot of water,[64] forcing 4,000 people to shelters" – a bit of a long, cluttered sentence
 * "with damage in additional municipalities still being inspected[95]" – this is probably very outdated by now
 * Throughout the Nuevo Leon section, the tenses used imply recency.
 * "one bricklayer who died after a housing unit under construction collapsed on top of him; two men and a woman who died after their vehicle rolled over and crashed into a semi-trailer truck due to the intense rainfall; a 25-year-old who was swept away by swift currents and pinned against a fence; an elderly man who died after a wall toppled over him, a woman who died after a large boulder from a rock slide fell on her home, and a young man who fell onto the Arroyo Topo Chico." – way too detailed
 * "The flooded stream washed away multiple parked vehicles,[105] a popular flea market and sport facilities built in a riverside greenway;[106] while it destroyed about 45 kilometres (28 mi) of Monterrey's main arterial streets[74]" – poor flow
 * "causing intermittent availability of telecommunication services" – "intermittent unavailability" would sound better here, since the services were initially available
 * "Thousands of citizens in Ciudad Acuña were evacuated after Arroyo Las Vacas flooded after 40 in (1,000 mm) of rain fell on nearby mountain ranges" – after, after gets a bit confusing
 * "36 hour period" – hyphenate 36-hour
 * "McAllen, Texas, measured 6.66 inches (169 mm) on June 30 and is now the city's wettest June day on record" – weird wording
 * "About $10 million (2010 USD) of agricultural damage were reported in Hidalgo County from Alex" – grammar
 * That's it for this section. A bit over-detailed in some areas, but on the other hand it's extremely thorough and comprehensive. Definitely GA+ worthy. ★ Auree  talk 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes done. Keep 'em coming. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aftermath
 * "$4.8 billion (2010 MXN; $375 million USD) were released by" – grammar
 * "rescue capabilities, in Laredo" – unnecessary comma
 * "animal husbandry: In" – lowercase "in"
 * That's all for this section. Good work on this article! ★ Auree  talk 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * }
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Excellent sourcing throughout the article.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A thorough and comprehensive read for sure, though some part seem a bit detailed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Public domain images with relevant captions
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass despite a few overly detailed sections, as this article definitely meets GA criteria. Very nice work on this; it was a great read! ★ Auree  talk 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass despite a few overly detailed sections, as this article definitely meets GA criteria. Very nice work on this; it was a great read! ★ Auree  talk 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)