Talk:Hurricane Hernan (1996)/GA1

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

Reviewer:

I will be reviewing this article for GA. Although I have discovered some problem with upgrading it GA, I will not flat-out fail it, unless no effort is made in the next 7 days. Below I have quoted portions of the article, which contain the the issues I have with passing the article. Press "Ctrl" and "F" and then copy and paste these quotes to easily find them in this article. Once you are finished, leave a comment on my talk page and I will decided from there if this article should be passed or not.
 * "Mexico on October 2, Hernan intensified a hurricane." ---> "Mexico on October 2, Hernan intensified into a hurricane."
 * "Hernan made landfall in Barra de Navidad, Jalisco with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." - Add a comma after the word "Jalisco".
 * "Cuyutlán, Colima indicated that Hernan executed a cyclonic loop to the southwest of Manzanillo.[11] About an hour later, Hernan made landfall near Barra de Navidad, Jalisco with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." - Add a comma after the names of the states of Colima and Jalisco.
 * "A tropical storm warning was issued from Acapulco, Guerrero to Manzanillo, Colima at 1800 UTC on October 1. Early on the following day, a hurricane watch was put into effect from Zihuatanejo, Guerrero to" - Add a comma after the words Guerrero (twice) and Colima (once).
 * "At 1500 UTC on that same day, a tropical storm warning was issued from Manzanillo, Colima San Blas, Nayarit." - Two things wrong here. First, add the word "to" between "Colima" and "San". After that, add a comma after "Colima".
 * For the impact in Texas, make sure you mention that it occurred (the remnants of Hernan) in combination with the Tropical Storm Josephine (1996). Example: "After dissipating, the remnants of Hernan, in combination with Tropical Storm Josephine, brought heavy downpours to southern Texas."
 * "street flooding and forced several families to evacuated their homes." ---> "street flooding and forced several families to evacuate their homes."
 * On Reference #16, the author is missing; it is located in the second paragraph of the "Preparations and Impact". Anyway, add the author parameter to the cite web template right there (|author=); after that, type or copy and paste "Associated Press" and insert it immediately after "author=".
 * At the bottom of the page, add
 * On Reference #16, the author is missing; it is located in the second paragraph of the "Preparations and Impact". Anyway, add the author parameter to the cite web template right there (|author=); after that, type or copy and paste "Associated Press" and insert it immediately after "author=".
 * At the bottom of the page, add
 * At the bottom of the page, add
 * At the bottom of the page, add

Not the reviewer: With all due respect, I believe the formal reviewer, 12george1, should disqualify himself from this article, as it is mostly his work. The qualifications for reviewing on WP:GAN clearly state the following as one of the reviewer criteria:
 * you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review;

Looking at the history of this article, the vast majority of it was written by 12george1: it went from 4549 bytes to 13658 bytes on November 24–25, 2011, a three-fold increase, and has had only minimal changes since then.

Can this article be reverted to a "to be reviewed" state, or turned over entirely to a second reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the second, and i'm happy to take over the review. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  00:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you let 12george1 know? I'm not sure what else would need to be done on the GAN page, if anything, regarding the change in reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I should have read all of the rules before I started. I thought it would be ok to review it just as long as I wasn't the nominator. So I guess if YE wants to take over the review, I will let him. But just so you guys know, this was all an accident and I was not cheating for points on the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time you'll know. :-) There are doubtless a number of reasons why someone who has made a significant contribution to an article should not be the one reviewing. The obvious ones about conflict of interest aside, the reviewer will find the prose natural (for obvious reasons), and is less likely to see the flaws that would strike another reviewer whose prose style is somewhat different. Thanks for checking in, and glad it's settled. All yours, YE. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyway, first things first JG, address all the above issues. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nwhit, on 12george1's talk page, claims to have done so a number of hours ago; I think it was done there in response to the "leave a comment" request up top. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I ave placed ✅ templates on what was done. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  16:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts: this review has sat for close to a month, the nominator hasn't addressed any of the issues or made any edits in the past month since nominating, and shows no further signs of interest. Unless you're prepared to fix the problems yourself, or find someone interested in doing so, I suggest closing it and letting it be nominated later by someone who is interested in seeing the article succeed as a GA.

Regardless, you should follow Wizardman's path: reclose the GA1 review (restoring Wiz's comment when you do) and start a new GA2 review under your own name, so it's formatted properly. Right now, this is considered a "malformed" review, because you've edited in the area specified by "and do not alter what is above" and messed up the formatting. (The official way to proceed when changing reviewers, I've discovered, is to close the current review and start a new one with the new reviewer by incrementing the review number on the article's talk page nomination template.) You can always copy in material from the GA1 as points to consider in the GA2, if you want to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am thinking about failing this article as not all of 12g1's comments have been addressed (thus, that's why I have not started .my own comments). If that is fixed, then yeah, I will open a second page with all of my comments. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The last edit to the article was March 13. You dropped a note on JG's page on March 11 that he should have notified the primary contributor before nominating it. He's done nothing to the article since November. This GAN has been abandoned by its nominator, has had problems identified for nearly a month, and virtually nothing has been done to fix them. As the person who noticed the conflict-of-interest problems here on March 13, and who still sees unaddressed problems with the article as identified by the major author, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and fail this nomination. A new nomination can be opened once the issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)