Talk:Hurricane Sandy/GA1

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating Hurricane Sandy, but it should be under the Earth sciences category, not Geography. Unfortunately, myself and others at the WikiProject Tropical cyclones do not believe that Sandy is ready to be considered a Good Article. To put that bluntly, I am going to have to fail this nomination. Here are my reasons (and this is just a skim-through, not a thorough analysis): Again, this is just a skim through. If I took time to look over the whole thing, I could probably find over 100 issues wrong with it; that's no exaggeration. The entire article will probably just have to be re-written from scratch, with just a little bit remaining the same. Again, I am unfortunately gonna have to fail this nomination. The article is lacking so severely in some places that it cannot be fixed in only week, maybe not even three weeks! Regards, --12george1 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad writing in some areas. For example, in the lede, there is 8 consecutive sentences starting with the word "In".
 * The overall damage total isn't accurate because it does not include estimates in foreign nations, such as Jamaica, Cuba, the Bahamas, and Haiti.
 * Why is the "Relation to global warming" section larger than the actual Meteorological history?
 * Lacking too much info. For example, there is much expansion needed for nearly all sub-sections under Impact, but especially for Cuba, the Bahamas, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Also, there are only a few sentences at most for Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Rhode Island. There is also absolutely no mention of impact in these states: Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. As for Preparations, I am sure there is more for Delaware, New England, and Appalachia and the Midwest, especially Ohio and West Virginia.
 * Paragraph are very choppy, with many being no more than 4 sentences long. Don't be afraid to go more liberal with paragraph sizes.
 * Sections are mixed with material that shouldn't be there. For example, "Sandy brought tropical-storm force winds and rain to South Florida from October 25–27" and "Storm surge from Sandy also caused flooding and beach erosion along coastal areas in South Florida." belong in the Impact section, not under Preparations. Another example is that this should be with the Aftermath: "After receiving many complaints that holding the marathon would divert needed resources, Mayor Bloomberg announced late afternoon November 2 that the New York City Marathon had been canceled. The event was to take place on Sunday, November 4. Marathon officials had said that they did not plan to reschedule.[255] Gas shortages throughout the region led to an effort by the U.S. federal government to bring in gasoline and set up mobile truck distribution at which people could receive up to 10 gallons of gas, free of charge. This caused lines of up to 20 blocks long and was quickly suspended.[256] On Thursday, November 8, Mayor Bloomberg announced odd-even rationing of gasoline would be in effect beginning November 9 until further notice.[257]" Why is the sinking of the Bounty group with North Carolina if it was offshore?
 * "Damage in the state is estimated at $30 billion." - This statement is marked with a [citation needed] template.
 * The article contains local times in some areas, which should not be used. Instead, they should be substituted for UTC. Here is an example: "neighborhoods prone to flooding to leave their homes by 2 p.m. EDT October 28 and move to safer ground."
 * The references aren't formatted consistently. Some have all the information needed, like the date, author(s), title, publisher, work, and accessdate. Others are simply a link to the source with the title. Some have their titles in all capital letters, which is highly discouraged and should be avoided. The author(s) names are also in an inconsistent pattern. For example, reference #17 has Robbie Berg; Lixion Avila, while there is Wrenn, Eddie on #218. Without checking, I can probably guess that there are a few deadlinks, too.