Talk:Tropical Storm Erika (2009)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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) 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:

Pretty good overall, but there are some things that need work. The most significant problems:


 * Although it was a disorganized system, it was immediately declared a tropical storm. - As opposed to, what?
 * Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the cyclone was well-organized, it lacked a defined low-level circulation center, leading to the NHC not issuing advisories on the system at that time. - This is a tad confusing, since it couldn't have been too well-organized it it didn't have a low-level center...
 * Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This led to the NHC immediately declaring the low a tropical storm and naming it Erika, the fifth named storm of the 2009 season. - Very poorly constructed sentence.
 * Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In post-storm analysis of these readings, it was determined that they had over estimated the wind speeds in an area of unusually heavy rains. - Who's "they"?
 * Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the Preparations section can simply be sourced to the TCR rather than numerous advisories.
 * Just directly sourcing to the original issuance of the watches/warnings Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but redundant or superfluous footnotes should be avoided whenever possible, and since the TCR already provides the same information in one centralized site, I think it would be better to cite that. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)r


 * The islands of Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy were placed under an orange alert and Guadeloupe was placed under a yellow alert. - What are orange and yellow alerts?
 * Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In Guadeloupe, heavy rainfall from Erika, peaking at 7.9 in (200 mm), leading to flooding in Côte-sous-le-Vent. - Grammar.
 * Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall the impact section makes use of passive voice far too often.
 * I'm not sure how to do this correctly, but I gave it a shot. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On-hold for now. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking better. Just a couple more issues before I can pass it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)