Talk:1956 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Hurricanehink in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 03:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.2 SM
Opening comments:
Betsy? Ethel? Flossy? Winny? Yes, this was definitely the fifties. 
On a more serious note, I've seen a lot of hurricane work before, from looking over FT/GT noms, but my limited expertise in Hurricanes comes solely from living through them. If you could link me to the policy/guideline that determines what storms do or do not qualify for articles, that would be fantastic.
- Are you talking which seasons qualify for articles? Or storm articles in general? For storm articles, it's simply based on if there is enough information on a storm to warrant having a sub-article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that at my discretion I may ask for a second pair of eyes, because I'm still rather new to this. We'll see how it goes.
1. Well written: 
Section acceptable
- a. prose/copyright: Fixed - now acceptable
- - My standard GAN review CorenSearchBot check came back clean. No red flags from the online non-machine readable sources either.
- - Since this needed so little work, I decided to just copyedit as I went. I'm nowhere near the best CE, but I'm passable. Please check to make sure that I didn't cause any inaccuracies.
- - The first two sentences of the section 'Hurricane Anna' made no sense to me. Where did it form? What's an anticyclone?
- - Ack, sorry about that. I clarified what a tropical wave was earlier in the article (season summary section). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - Thanks for leaving the note.
- - Ack, sorry about that. I clarified what a tropical wave was earlier in the article (season summary section). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - This isn't a recommendation that you rewrite anything in specific as much as it is a heads up: You write hurricane articles. Most of the hurricane articles are reviewed by other people that write hurricane articles. It's great that there's so much expertise, but the side effect, as seen from the Hurricane Anna section, is that sometimes your writing can be a bit technical; terms that are second nature to you aren't immediately meaningful/defined to people who aren't in the discourse community.
- - Yea, sorry about that. That is why we value GA reviews from other authors. Some people have a greater basic knowledge about hurricanes. A person in Florida would know more than someone who's never heard of a hurricane. It's a difficult line sometimes; if we explained every last term, then the article would become rather long and possibly even unreadable in the first few paragraphs (by explaining the terms their first times around). What exactly did you find the most confusing? (aside from "tropical wave" and "anticyclone"?) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - I've lived through quite a few hurricanes, and I had no idea what an anticyclone was. Looks like you removed the term. Marking as resolved.
- - Yea, sorry about that. That is why we value GA reviews from other authors. Some people have a greater basic knowledge about hurricanes. A person in Florida would know more than someone who's never heard of a hurricane. It's a difficult line sometimes; if we explained every last term, then the article would become rather long and possibly even unreadable in the first few paragraphs (by explaining the terms their first times around). What exactly did you find the most confusing? (aside from "tropical wave" and "anticyclone"?) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- b. MoS compliance:
Acceptable
- - I moved around one of the sections at the bottom per the (insufferable) MoS, but otherwise perfectly fine. Don't know how I didn't mention this in the initial review. Eh
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
- a. provides references:
Needs work Fixed - now acceptable
- - The first paragraph of 'Season summary' says "...under the direction of Gordon Dunn, began daily monitoring..." - I think that we have the wrong Gordon Dunn here, because the linked article doesn't mention anything about Hurricanes or the NWS, and because the source doesn't say anything about Grodon Dunn's past. If we can't verify that it's the same person, we need to delink and leave a note in arrows warning against a relink.
- - Oops! Thanks for that catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - Marking as fixed.
- - Oops! Thanks for that catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - The first paragraph of 'Season summary' says "...under the direction of Gordon Dunn, began daily monitoring..." - I think that we have the wrong Gordon Dunn here, because the linked article doesn't mention anything about Hurricanes or the NWS, and because the source doesn't say anything about Grodon Dunn's past. If we can't verify that it's the same person, we need to delink and leave a note in arrows warning against a relink.
- b. proper citation use:
Question Answered - now acceptable
- - Why do you use "Staff writer" instead of leaving the field blank?
- - Sorry, it's an old habit. I removed them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- -You didn't have to do that, I suppose. I was more looking for a reason (or better, some link you could point to that said it was okay), but removing them works too. Marking as resolved.
- - Sorry, it's an old habit. I removed them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - Why do you use "Staff writer" instead of leaving the field blank?
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable
- a. covers main aspects: Acceptable
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
- - These have a very specific formula, which you've followed to good effect. (Comment for 3a and 3b)
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
5. Stable: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
- - Preformed a bit of cleanup, (it's just simpler for me to do, I've found), free of charge: 1, 2
- - File:1956 Atlantic hurricane season map.png is a mess, but it's not your fault and there's noting you can do to fix it. Essentially the issue is that the image is script generated, and both the datasets and the tool are... well... missing/relocated.
- - I uploaded a new image. Hopefully that's better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - That works. You didn't actually need to change anything; I could tell that everything was legit in the old one. I was just grumbling about it, I suppose.
- - I uploaded a new image. Hopefully that's better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- b. relevant/properly captioned:
Question Acceptable
- - It'd be nice if we could find a second image for all of the storms that only have one, but if that's not possible, that's not possible. I'm holding off on marking this section as done until I get at least an answer as to the feasibility of this.
- - I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean "only have one"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - There are two pictures in the box for Hurricane Betsy, one of the storm, one of the track. There is only one picture, the track, for Hurricane Anna. I realize that there just weren't satellites up there in 1956 taking multiple shots of every storm, I was just saying that if you could find a photo of Anna and/or the others, I'd be great. If they just don't exist, that's okay too, I just want you to say (here, to me) that the don't exist, so I can be comfortable that things are as complete as they can be on that issue.
- - Oh, yea. That was 1956, before satellite imagery, so we're lucky even two storms have a secondary image. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- - Right, thought as much. You're good. Promoting now.
- - Oh, yea. That was 1956, before satellite imagery, so we're lucky even two storms have a secondary image. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- - There are two pictures in the box for Hurricane Betsy, one of the storm, one of the track. There is only one picture, the track, for Hurricane Anna. I realize that there just weren't satellites up there in 1956 taking multiple shots of every storm, I was just saying that if you could find a photo of Anna and/or the others, I'd be great. If they just don't exist, that's okay too, I just want you to say (here, to me) that the don't exist, so I can be comfortable that things are as complete as they can be on that issue.
- - I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean "only have one"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - It'd be nice if we could find a second image for all of the storms that only have one, but if that's not possible, that's not possible. I'm holding off on marking this section as done until I get at least an answer as to the feasibility of this.
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer
- a. images have alt texts: Acceptable
- - N/A in this case.
- b. article is suitable for solid copy export:
Question Acceptable
- -There are a small number of citations that appear after commas, and it looks awkward, especially in print or PDF form. I also find that, when reading, I make a full pause instead of a half pause when I see citations. That makes things choppier. What would you think about moving them all to after the periods or semicolons that end the sentences? I already moved one, not knowing there were others, in the Betsy section. (If your answer is "no", that one I moved should be moved back).
- - I'd never thought of that before. Sounds good to me! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- - Thanks for indulging me on this.
- - I'd never thought of that before. Sounds good to me! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- -There are a small number of citations that appear after commas, and it looks awkward, especially in print or PDF form. I also find that, when reading, I make a full pause instead of a half pause when I see citations. That makes things choppier. What would you think about moving them all to after the periods or semicolons that end the sentences? I already moved one, not knowing there were others, in the Betsy section. (If your answer is "no", that one I moved should be moved back).
- c. catch all general aesthetics: Acceptable
- - Looks good from my end, save the thing in 7b. I added one {{clear}}, that was all that was needed.
Initial review: 06:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC) - Sven Manguard Wha?
Second check: 04:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) - Sven Manguard Wha? - All but 6b marked as done. Will wait on 6b before promoting.
PROMOTED 15:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC) - Sven Manguard Wha?