Talk:Hurricane Gilbert/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I don't even know where to start to some degree. There are massive glaring issues with this article. Let's start at the fact that we have no source consistency whatsoever. You have dates running around in different formats (2010-10-10 or October 10, 2010). Consistency is key in this, because you can only have one or the other, not an and/or situation. Second, there are |accessdate= missing in several citations, including, but not all of: 2, 5, 11, 27, 28 and so on. To bonus this, there is absolutely no formatting consistency, citations 2, 24, 37 are still a bare link and title. Next we have no consistency in Tropical Cyclone Report/Preliminary Report titling. There are titles all over the place and utterly confusing in this department. This is just citations alone in the references section, I haven't even gotten to the usage of them.

"This pressure was the lowest ever observed in the Western Hemisphere and made Gilbert the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record, until it was surpassed by Hurricane Wilma in 2005." – Do we have a citation for this? "Gilbert restrengthened rapidly, however, and made landfall for a final time as a Category 3 hurricane near La Pesca, Tamaulipas, on September 16." – Wash, Rinse, Repeat. A good portion of the Meteorological History is cited by the Preliminary Report only, with some others wedged in there. The meteorological history in general is lacking in information. The storm lasted 11 days, and this is 1988. Who recorded the lower pressure? Recon? Satellites? I see a lot more options for expansion here than has been given. Next, there had to be more preparations, evacuations, stuff like that in Texas. No Category 4 comes barreling into Texas without preparations. Where did the storm make landfall, this isn't even in the meteorological history. The fact that you don't mention landfall but mention the fact that the 29 tornadoes were spawned comes as a major red flag.

The largest portion of the problems is by far, in the largest section. The impact has citations missing in several evident places. There are not supposed to be spaces between a period and citations in sentences. "About 45 people died." – Where? The Jamaica and Eastern Caribbean probably have a lot more expansion then you might believe. Next, why do the Cayman Islands and Central America have their own sections? Unless you can expand these, I'd argue merging the two into different sections. A good portion of the damage was in Mexico, yet the section is aptly pathetic. The Jamaica and E. Caribbean ones look much better than it. The overhaul here is needed, badly. "Two ore more were killer tornadoes.[37]" – I've never seen anyone on Wikipedia misspell "or". Also, do we have an exact number? It seems utterly stupid that we have no number. Where did they occur, etc. I'm not asking to list every tornado, but the killer ones should have some say. Finally, no Aftermath section? I have to picture the destruction had a lot of aid sent to Mexico. Go look this up.

Overall, the article....needs work. The stuff I gave is just a glancing run, and if I've got almost 4 paragraphs of responses, I can make it easy and tell you that I am failing this article. It's been a long time since I've failed an article, and this is my 2nd out of 2 so far. Normally, I'd give some leniency, but the amount of problems present in this article cannot be handled in 7 days. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. What a review.  No assumption of good faith, eh?  Your citation format is quite relevant as a concern.  It's not good, either for the project or wikipedia, that this review became a rant.  After my edit earlier today, I'm fairly sure that the article is clear about recon being the source of the lowest pressure reading.  We're not going to get increased membership in the project if this kind of attitude pervades it.  Check out the latest signpost article on why this review is an example of what is wrong with wikipedia, and why some of us are withdrawing from its participation.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's easier to let the truth be given now, rather than rubber-stamp it and run to FAC where it would get crucified. I'd rather have a detailed rationale for failure over stuff like Talk:Delaware Route 36, where the guy rubber-stamped a failure. I don't call this a rant, I call this outlining the massive problems with this article. It's just, this article in particular, is in need of a review like this. I'm not trying to drive away editors as you claim, I'm trying to say it the way it is. If you don't like it, just ask for another review. Nothing's stopping you. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't submit the article for GAN. There was an editor involved who was trying to improve the article, and I was trying to be encouraging, figuring the editor would do the relevant work before its submission.  Truth within reviews is fine...but keep the review focused on the facts, not opinions.  You can give a review without comments like "I don't know where to start", "I don't get the reason why it was nominated", and "overall the article sucks".  Those type of comments are wikipedia's main problem.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that I'm willing to have a review like this, with the editor giving his opinion and giving the facts. Your issues is a by-product of society. Anyway, I've removed them for now. I'm not happy with your response to this and I'll state it like that. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 03:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think Mitch's review of the article is, albeit somewhat blunt and overstated, accurate. The article is not terrible, but it definitely needs a fair amount of work to attain GA status. I'd rather have reviewers like he than people who pass the article after barely having given it an in-depth look and overseeing glaring problems. The notion that Mitch should "keep the review focused on the facts, not opinions" is somewhat fallacious, as a GA review in itself is, to an extent, the reviewer's own interpretation of the criteria that should be satisfied -- something that Mitch was patently doing. In any case, the review was premature, and I think I too, as well as any editor with reasonable knowledge of the criteria would have failed the article for these reasons. Although Mitch, I must admit that you need to watch your wording--saying things like "the article sucks" can come across as condescending and demotivate other editors.  Auree  ★★  04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)