Talk:Hurricane Florence (1953)/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Very nicely done article. Just has a few niggling details that need resolving and I'll be happy to pass it for GA.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "The origins...were from a tropical wave" sounds slghtly awkward. Is there a better way to say this? "Hurricane Florence developed from..."?
 * Well, I don't want to imply that Florence developed on September 21, when the TW was first observed. I wanted to indicate that the precursor system to Florence was first observed as a TW on that date. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The peak winds may have been estimated too high" - doesn't sound quite right. "The estimate of the peak winds may have been too high" might sound better, I'd think.
 * Yea, I like the ring of that. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "By six hours after moving ashore" - the "By" should be removed.
 * I changed "by" to "within", since it wasn't exactly six hours afterward. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "While it was first developling" - reccoment "While the storm was..." Also, where did it drop the 10" of rain that isolated villages and blocked roads? Haiti? Cuba? Both?
 * Hah, whoops, it's supposed to say Jamaica. Good catch. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Early in its duration" - sounds very awkward. Is there a better way to say this? "Early in its existiance?"
 * Heh, it's actually sort of tricky, and the wording was deliberate. The default would be "early in its lifetime", but tropical cyclones don't have a lifetime. That said, "existence" is a great alternative. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "which was credited" - "which were credited" is better grammar here I think.
 * Yea. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * suggest "being caused" to be added after "in the event of heavy damage".
 * OK. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What Coast Guard ship was battling the storm?
 * It doesn't say, but even if it did, I think that would be sort of trivial. It's not like Coast Guard ships are given SS names (afiak). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they do get "USCGC Foo" names. ;) But as it is, it's suitable for a GA - for A-class or FA, though, I'd think the name will be needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some research reveals the ship was the USC&GS Hydrographer (commissioned '28) Juliancolton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some research reveals the ship was the USC&GS Hydrographer (commissioned '28) Juliancolton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "left crop damage" - "caused crop damage" would read better. Also, what crops were damaged? Corn? Cotton?
 * No idea actually. The source didn't specify, and I couldn't find details in other sources, so I just added "minor" before "crop damage" to better reflect what the source said. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "shelter/shelters" is used three times in the same sentence; not sure there's any other way to say it though.
 * Bam, dropped to one usage! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * an "of" needs to be added to "Heavy rainfall was reported in portions Alabama". Also, "a report one inch shy of the 24 hour precipiation record" - what was the record?
 * Added. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No OR, and the references are all A or A+ quality. Suggest wikilinking Grady Norton's name in the refs though. Also, is there a reference that states about the ships not confirming the wind estimates?
 * Sure. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article sticks to its topic and covers it well without digressing.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is neutral in its presentation, avoiding peacock phrasing and weasel words.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article appears to be stable and without edit conflicts.
 * 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):
 * Three weather-map images, all appropriate, PD, and captioned. However, is there any chance that photographs of the "storm in progress", or of the aftermath, could be added?
 * Not for that time, unfortunately. Photographs of the storm in progress, if any, would be in newspapers and thus copyrighted. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this article on hold so that the above comments can be discussed and addressed. Shouldn't be too hard, and then I'll be happy to pass this as GA. :) The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks a lot for the review. I'll still be a few points behind you, so I think you may just squeak out a win for the first CUP round! :P ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! And it's always fun to compete in creating quality content, since no matter who wins, Wikipedia does. :) The only quibble I have remaining is the Coast Guard's ship name; but that's only a quibble; everything looks good, and this is hereby declared Passed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)