Talk:Hurricane Alma (1966)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I haven't really looked at the article extensively yet, but there seems to be little information on Honduras and Cuba, which is where the storm basically did everything (85 deaths and $200+ million 1993 USD in damage, which is quite a lot). This is especially highlighted by the exhaustive content on US impact, where the storm's impact was comparatively minor. I realize it is much harder to come across reliable sources for those countries and that you don't speak Spanish, but I think more research is needed for this article to be sufficiently comprehensive. Auree ^★★ 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Honduras, I doubt there is any more, since all of that was in one little town which was basically destroyed. I'll check for more Cuba stuffo. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but I didn't see any more. The Spanish sources didn't have anything new. I do think the article is comprehensive. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice,fiction, and lists):

MoS is complied with and I like the lead; although the writing in the body is borderline mediocre in some areas, we can tackle the prose together. Some concerns about ambiguity/jargon:

You mention it was the earliest hurricane to strike the US in the lead and MH, but I don't think it's clear enough as is. Earliest in what sense?

I don't understand the ambiguity here... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest in the year? Month? Season? It's no deal breaker but could benefit from some clarification. Auree ^★★ 06:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified in the lede. Do you think I should clarify when I mention the record again in the MH? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"During June 1966, low pressures stretched across the western Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico—a pattern that is was conducive for tropical cyclogenesis."? Another thing: "across the western Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico" implies that the pressures stretched across the western Caribbean Sea and the western Gulf of Mexico, but I don't think that's what you mean. In addition, it might be favorable to write "low atmospheric pressure" here to make things clearer.

I disagree with the first part, since low pressure is still a generic pattern that is conducive for development. I'll agree with "low atmospheric pressure" though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In" the first few days?

Yea? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, I thought it sounded weird (my mind corrected it to "Over"). Auree ^★★ 06:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, ok! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a tropical low? Is there a more accessible and applicable term we can use?

I removed that part, since it's more concise now saying "A mid-level circulation developed along the trough."

"It did not weaken over land and turned to the northwest in the Gulf of Mexico, passing between Key West and the Dry Tortugas." Should that be "into the Gulf of Mexico"? Idk, it's not clear as is.

No, it's correct as it is. The storm turned to the northwest in in the GoMnomnom. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you opposed to rewording to "Alma did not weaken over land and entered the Gulf of Mexico, where it turned northwestward and passed between Key West and the Dry Tortugas" or something along those lines? Auree ^★★ 07:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool water temperatures contributed to weakening, causing Alma to make landfall near Apalachee Bay with winds of 90 mph (140 km/h)." Implies that the cool water temperatures' contributing to the weakening caused the hurricane to make landfall.

Fixed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"One week before its hurricane preparations for the season, Alma gave the Kennedy Space Center a chance to go through the situation under the threat of a real storm." ???

It was previously in the article, but ack, I fixed it. Agreed it was pretty weak. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A mock-up of a Saturn V rocket was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building on June 8, within 12 hours in the face of 60 mph (97 km/h) wind gusts, within the anticipated time for such a move." ????

See above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"San Rafael was nearly destroyed," I know sensationalism is no requirement on WP, especially not for GAs, but this could be worded so much better. It implicitly emphasizes the fact that the town wasn't entirely destroyed, while it should be doing the opposite.

But MWR said "the town was virtually destroyed". I don't want to use that exact wording... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's too closely paraphrased as is, so I'd rephrase it entirely. Auree ^★★ 06:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed to "Most of San Rafael was destroyed", since that avoids the washy "nearly". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"During its transit of the Gulf of Mexico, scientists were measuring the hurricane's impact of the seawater temperatures around Alma at a depth of 4 meters. They discovered that they cooled off in its southeast quadrant due to the storm's wake." Overall poor wording + dangling participle at the start of the first sentence.

I thought about it, and I really don't care much for that info. There weren't any discoveries due to the readings. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and learned information"?
Second to last paragraph of Impact: I usually don't pay attention to repetition when GA reviewing, but four consecutive "which"-clause sentences is a bit excessive.

I switched two of them, yea. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking: Savannah, Georgia is linked twice, all else is fine.

Removed second. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optional but preferable: Check for redundancies ("at least", "also", etc.) and avoid unnecessary "as well as"s where possible.

Yea, removed a few "also"s. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few grammatical errors, so I had to do some heavy copy-editing -- not something I normally do when I review, but I'm in a good mood : D Auree ^★★ 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 15 is returning a "Warning: Registration (access issue)" error, so I suggest you look into that promptly. The rest looks good; will perform spotchecks on 5 sources for accuracy soon. Auree ^★★ 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It worked fine for me. :/ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's opening right now, but that error indicates that the link will go dead soon. I meant to suggest archiving it. Auree ^★★ 06:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which ref are you talking about, BTW. Is it the ABC Madrid? I ask because I removed the ref when I removed the bit about the temperatures. And I see nothing about a registration error in any of the links. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--it was removed during your edits. : )
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
We'll discuss this further later. Auree ^★★ 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly picked one source in the Google News archives, and it had quite a bit of Cuba info that isn't in the article. I think we can definitely flesh out the impact for this storm in Cuba (and maybe Honduras). Auree ^★★ 07:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, it's been added. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found more. Do you want to discuss this later on IRC or do you think you can do some more research yourself? I don't have the links right now. Auree ^★★ 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, let's discuss on IRC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Certainly
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
All good
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):
Images are appropriate and licensed, though the caption for the infobox image isn't very useful since the East Coast is practically invisible. Check capitalization for the rainfall image caption. This doesn't affect the GA, but you might also want to resolve the transfer tagging issue for that image, and the infobox image's details and summary could benefit from some cleanup. Auree ^★★ 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I can clearly see the outline of New Jersey, New York, and Long Island. I added "United States" to clarify. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say you can "clearly" discern the outline with all that black and white noise is definitely an overstatement, but I won't make a big deal about this. Auree ^★★ 06:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

In conclusion: This article has come a long way since its nomination. The information for Cuba, which was where the storm did most of its damage, really shines now, bringing this article much closer to GA status. I actually think it's beyond that now, so a definite pass from me. :) Auree ^★★ 23:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the great review :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]