Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. EF5 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this! EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No reference or OR issues, so good job there.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No issues here, although see below about the "fatalities" section".
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I spotted no weasel words, so nothing to really fix here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Besides the recent major expansion, there have been no disruptive edit wars in the past few weeks.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I'm afraid the second image (File:Emily_2005_path.png) is sandwiching text between it and
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    See my below comments.

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead states that Hurricane Emily was one of only two July Atlantic hurricanes to reach Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale. If Hurricane Emily was one, what was the other? Per WP:LEAD, it should give general information without making readers have to dig deeper. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Emily mainly made landfall over Caribbean countries, shouldn't the date layout be D/M/Y instead of M/D/Y? I'm not sure which way it's usually formatted for hurricanes. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, yea you're right, just finished!
  • The sentences Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12. Residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides should be shortened to one larger sentence, such as "Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12 and residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides." EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a section on the fatalities be made? Although not required, it would help readers skip straight there instead of having to comb through the entire article. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a sentence starting out the impact section, which reflects the information in the infobox. The fatalities are woven into the narrative, so I don't think an entire section is needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to have fixed it. EF5 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article so far, it's in pretty good shape! EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @EF5:, lemme know if I missed anything! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. EF5 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@EF5: - overall this is a nice review of a high-quality article. Could you confirm that you spot-checked some of the references to make sure they verify? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EF5, as per Ganesha811's above comment, can you please confirm whether you did a spot check? I see you are claiming this for WikiCup points as well, and a spotcheck is required per both the GAN rules and the WikiCup rules. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must not have gotten the first ping. Sure, should I pick out random ones and list them, or…? EF5 13:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's some random sources:
  • [17] (WU) - October 17-19, 1997: Super Typhoons Ivan and Joan in the Northwest Pacific in the source backs up the "marking the first time since Typhoons Ivan and Joan in 1997 when two tropical cyclones of Category 5 strength existed simultaneously in the Northern Hemisphere." that it is cited to.
  • [25] (Naples Daily News) - many Islanders still have no roofs and left few buildings viable as shelters in the source backs up the "This left fewer buildings as reliable shelters and many homes without roofs by the arrival of Emily." that it is cited to.
  • [42] (ReliefWeb) - The Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) is reporting that there are approximately 3,269 persons in 79 shelters across the island. in the source backs up the "Upon the onset of the storm, a total of 3,269 people were utilizing public shelters." that it is cited to.
  • [89] (CMO) - however, only near-gale strength was recorded at one station in that area. in the source backs up the "Despite its intensity, Emily only produced gale-force winds at one location in southwestern Jamaica." that it is cited to, although in the following sentence in the source it goes mention gale-force winds in a bay.
  • [101]/[102] (NOAA) - County/Area - JIM WELLS, County/Area - LIVE OAK in the sources back up the "A tornado touched down in open fields of Jim Wells County, which crossed into Duval County, remaining on the ground for about 6.4 km (4 mi). The twister damaged a few houses." and "Another tornado touched down in rural parts of Jim Wells County, which crossed into Live Oak County." in the article.
  • [4] (NWS) - I did find one innacuracy that I forgot to mention here, source 4 only states that "A total of eight tornadoes were reported in southeastern Texas, causing minor damage but no casualties.", which contradicts "Emily's rainbands spawned at least nine tornadoes across southern Texas" in the article. Pinging @Hurricanehink: for the fix, and @Ganesha811: and @Epicgenius:. I hope this suffices, feel free to let me know if I need more examples to give. :) EF5 19:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely suffices for the GA backlog drive, thanks! In the future, you can list them out in full, as you did here, or just say "Checked sources #s X, Y, Z, and Z1, all verified" or similar. Spot checking is pretty flexible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems good to me as well. I agree with what Ganesha says regarding spotchecks, you can just mention the source numbers you checked, or list in detail each of the sources that you checked. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the tornado count, I realize the NHC said eight tornadoes, but NCDC clearly identifies nine tornadoes. There's the F1 that was in Jim Wells/Duval county, an F0 that went from Jim Wells to Duval County, an F0 that went from Jim Wells to Live Oak County, and ones in Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, San Patricio, Webb, and Zapata. That's nine. I'm guessing the one in Cameron, which was media-reported, might not have been included in the TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Emily_(2005)/GA2&oldid=1269500688"