Talk:December 1960 nor'easter

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:December 1960 nor'easter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 11:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Juliancolton, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Juliancolton, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have a few comments and questions below that must first be addressed before continuing with the process. Thank you for all your great work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the nor'easter, establishes the nor'easter's necessary context, and explains why the nor'easter is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the nor'easter is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image in the info box of the weather analysis has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
• The lede incorporates content from the Meteorological history section and the Impact section.
• The first mention of nor'easter in the lede should be wiki-linked to the nor'easter article, unless I've somehow missed another link the article in this section.

• Got it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Meteorological history

• Should the first sentence of the first paragraph instead begin with "The nor'easter" rather than "The winter storm"?

• I don't think it makes a huge difference, but changed because "why not?" :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• The article for North Atlantic oscillation has "oscillation" in lower case. Is there a reason why it is capitalized in this usage?

• Good catch. Who knew? – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• Would "even though" work better than "whereas" in this sentence regarding NAO?

• Changed to "though"; does that work? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not to harp on the first paragraph of this section, but would it be appropriate to say "1960–1961 winter season"? It seems more complete that way. Please bear in mind that I haven't reviewed many weather-related articles, so I apologize in advance if I'm a bit off base with some of my suggestions.

• Good call. This particular storm occurred before the solstice, so "winter season" is more accurate indeed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• The first usage of "trough" should be wiki-linked to Trough (meteorology).

• Expanded the previous link to include the word "trough". – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• For "a secondary surface cyclone developed along a frontal boundary over South Carolina late on December 11"... is this sentence cited in Kocin and Uccellini, too?

• Err, yeah. Not sure why I put that citation in the middle of the sentence there, but that entire paragraph is cited to Kocin, p. 397. Wonky ref removed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• Nova Scotia is wiki-linked, but none of the U.S. states are. I would suggest de-linking this as well.

• Done. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Impact

• As stated above, U.S. states are not wiki-linked above, but then Nova Scotia is, then other U.S. states are linked. Since U.S. states and Canadian provinces are major territories of note, it would be safe to de-link all. I'll leave this up to you though as this is not a deal breaker for Good Article status.

• I think I've removed them all now. I've been trying to break the habit of linking major territories and landforms, but I guess I need to focus a bit harder. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• Washington, D.C. only needs to be wiki-linked once in this section.

• Oops, got it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• Wiki-link Christmas shopping to Economics of Christmas.

• Great idea. Done. – Juliancolton | ^Talk

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

An excellent, detailed, and unexpectedly speedy review; many thanks! I believe I've addressed all your concerns. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Juliancolton, thank you for your thorough and timely response to my above mentioned comments and suggestions. Upon my re-review of the article, I find that you have sufficiently incorporated my suggestions and it is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nor'easter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)