Talk:Hurricane Edith (1963)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * a few spots of unclearness, and some issues with capitilization
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * cannot use a wikipedia article as a reference
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * the information on Puerto Rico is way too detailed, especially compared to the treatment given other islands.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General:
 * You cannot use a Wikipedia article as a citation/source, so current ref 5 is invalid.
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the references - such as AOML, CDERA, NOAA, etc.
 * Lead:
 * expand mph on first usage, for those who won't know what it means. All abbreviations should be given a full listing on the first occurance, like this "winds of 100 miles per hour (mph) (155 kilometers per hour (km/h)).
 * link something about "named storms" to explain to those who don't know anything about hurricanes.
 * Suggest rather than saying "numerous warnings and adisories were issues" you give the numbers.
 * If information in the lead is cited in the body, it doesn't need a citation in the lead also.
 * Meteorological history:
 * Where did this depression form? the "Intertropical Convergence Zone" isn't very specific. In the lead you say "northern Atlantic"... at the least this should be repeated here.
 * Should link something to explain "center of circulation"
 * explain "mb" on first usage, don't depend on the link.
 * Link to San Juan Weather Bureau?
 * Why do you link reconnaissance on the second occurance? Link on the first.
 * Link: Barbados, tropical storm, Hispaniola, Bahamas, wave, low (both those last are specific meteorological terms, right? They need linking to those).
 * Shouldn't it be Tropical Storm Edith and Hurricane Edith?
 * Preparation:
 * Leeward Islands, not islands. It's a proper noun. LInk it also.
 * "...because of the closeness of Edith to them." is clunky, suggest perhaps dropping "to them." at the very least.
 * Link Guadaloupe, Gale warnnings, Haiti, Virgin Islands,
 * St Lucia or Saint Lucia? you use both, pick one and stick with it.
 * Surely you have a citation for the last two sentence of prepartion?
 * Impact:
 * Use Template:Inflation to give current day figures for the damage amounts.
 * conversion for the 7-9 inches of rain figure.
 * "These winds were accompanied by heavy, flooding rains and also received wind and flood damage..." what received wind and flood damage? the winds?
 * Shouldn't "highway one" be capitilized?
 * "bombarded with moderate winds" is just plain strange sounding. Perhaps "subjected" instead of bombarded?
 * Shouldn't Ponce beach be Ponce Beach?


 * I think we're going into a bit too much detail on the specifics of what was damaged on Puerto Rico, It's very much WP:UNDUE compared to the information on the other islands. Suggest cutting this back to something similar to the other islands.
 * I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been 8 days and no progress nor communication, so I'm failing this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of the problems that I can. Going to renominate. Bobby122   Contact Me   (C)  19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)