Talk:Hurricane Chris (2018)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Chris (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KN2731 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Will take a look at this over the next day or so. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Criteria

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):

   There area some prose errors listed below. The second paragraph of the lead should be longer, maybe include the number of rescues and that oil rigs off Canada were evacuated. Parts of the meteorological history don't make much sense at first glance, and in some cases contradict the lead. More details are provided below.

 Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   In prep/impact, "hundreds of water rescues" is not supported by the source. Ref 29 leads to a report from June 2012.

    Done

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Adequately comprehensive for a low-impact storm.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   Caption for the Beryl and Chris image says July 10, but image appears to be dated to July 9.

    Done

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A decent article overall, but could be more coherent. Putting on hold while waiting for the issues to be resolved. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

---

More specific comments

• Chris originated from a frontal system that moved offshore the coast of the northeastern United States on July 2 - MH says June 29?
  •  Done
• Link "received the name" to Tropical cyclone naming
  •  Done
• I see the minimum pressure is mentioned in the lead, but not in the MH? And when did Chris reach peak intensity?
  •  Done
• There is no indication that the first two sentences of the MH are relevant to the storm. Reading on, I see The remaining convection, or shower and thunderstorm activity, of the front and a new upper-level disturbance formed a surface low on July 4 - firstly, is the new upper-level disturbance the one that was mentioned earlier? Secondly, this should be mentioned earlier, rather than keep the reader guessing what the frontal system and upper-level disturbance have to do with Chris.
  • The TCR says this.
    • It does, but unlike the TCR, the article as it is doesn't make it clear that the system became Chris. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Despite being located over the Gulf Stream, the depression's convection diminished greatly - something like "Despite being located over the warm waters of the Gulf Stream" would make the relation between convection and the Gulf Stream more obvious to the non-expert reader.
  •  Done
• No need to abbreviate low-level circulation center if it's never used again.
  •  Done
• Weak steering currents led Chris to stall - what caused the steering currents to be weak?
  • TCR doesn't say.
    • Discussion 13: "Steering should remain weak for the next 24 hours or so due to the cyclone being trapped in a large break in the subtropical ridge". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done
• This caused the storm to acquire annular characteristics, while slowly strengthening - "This caused" implies that Chris taking on an annular appearance and strengthening slowly was a direct result of it stalling off the US East Coast, which I don't think is what is intended here.
  •  Done
• The steering pattern around the storm was changing as a weakening mid-level ridge over the central Atlantic and a new trough over the northeastern United States began to accelerate the cyclone eastward. This seems to be a misuse of past continuous tense, as it shifts the sentence's focus onto the changing nature of the steering pattern, rather than on Chris.
  •  Done
• Is "quicker" considered acceptable under en-US?
  •  Done Changed quicker to quickly.
• Located over the Gulf Stream, Chris proceeded to rapidly intensify - what was the difference from earlier that allowed for quicker intensification?
  •  Done
• Link extratropical cyclone and Iceland in the MH.
  •  Done
• More than 75 people had been rescued from Wrightsville Beach from July 4 to July 8 - "had been" → "were", and second "July" doesn't need to be there.
  •  Done
• a Coastal Flood Advisory was issued for the Jersey Shore due to the threat of coastal flooding what else would a coastal flood advisory be issued for??
  •  Done
• Environmental Canada should be "Environment Canada" IIRC.
  •  Done
• Is Chris passed 383 mi (616 km) to the north supposed to be closest approach? Otherwise there's not much point putting the exact value. Besides, ref 30 says Chris was 357 mi WNW of Bermuda.
  •  Partly done. Changed to "a few hundred miles".
• This isn't strictly relevant to the GA review since the GA criteria don't cover citation styles, but use of |work= and |publisher in {{cite news}} should follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style#Newspaper vs publisher vs agency vs author in news articles. Use of |author= versus |last= |first= should also be consistent.
  •  Partly done Fixed some of the cite webs.

Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have any issues with my comments. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: I have done for some of the fixes, including the main issues. Is there anything more? If there are, then I will continue working this again on December 5. SMB99thx my edits! 13:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@SMB99thx: I've struck the stuff in this section that's been addressed. For the stuff above, the lead's second paragraph still needs to be expanded, and ref 36 now points to a December 2020 overview rather than July 2018. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm removing these {{done}} templates. For ref36, I was not able to completely fix it because there is no archived data for July 11, 2018. SMB99thx my edits! 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about the timing - I don't really care whether someone takes 7 days or 27 days to finish addressing a GA review provided they do intend to work on it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. I have a lot of college work lately. SMB99thx my edits! 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I have done some fixes for you. SMB99thx my edits! 12:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: A lot of them are done now. SMB99thx my edits! 14:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa and SMB99thx: you'll need to find an alternative for the Bermuda Weather Service ref, otherwise everything else looks good. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: The thing is that the BWS's website is trash. The monthly summaries all have the same url, and thus the url directs to the December 2020 summary, not the July 2018 summary. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean... since web archiving wasn't working (the url loads the December 2020 weekly summary by default) I decided to screenshot the page and use that as an "archive". Honestly, I'm not sure how permissible that is, but it's the only working solution I see.

Great work on the rest - passing now. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)