Talk:Hurricane Lenny/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, good job on expanding the article! I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. Auree ★ 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments

Resolved comments from Auree ★ 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lede - There are several instances of heavy prose in the lede, but I will only point out the most conspicuous ones. Should "category 4" be capitalized? The categories of a storm are capitalized throughout the rest of the article. Weird! Yea, I don't know why I did that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) What record did the fact that Lenny attained Category-4 intensity set? It doesn't mention it in the body either, just that it "set a record" Sorry, I thought it was clear. I clarified. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Lenny formed on November 13 in the western Caribbean, and for its entire duration maintained an unprecedented west-to-east track – the ", and for its entire duration maintained" part doesn't flow well to me in relation to the rest of the sentence. You could add an "it" before "maintained," but why not simply ", and maintained an unprecedented west-to-east track for its entire duration"? I like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) The succeeding sentence suffers from the same issue mentioned above. I disagree. I think it is clear what "it" is referring to. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) I mean that it flows poorly. Something like "It attained hurricane status to the south of Jamaica on November 15, and passed south of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico over the next few days" reads better. Auree ★ 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Lenny killed two people in northern Colombia from high surf – How does something kill someone "from" something else? Because I think this works just as well (and more succinct) to "as a result of". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) It just sounds really odd to me. How about "Before [...], Lenny produced rough surf that killed two people in northern Colombia." "High" storm damage strikes me as a bit odd. How about "Significant," or "heavy," or even "extensive"? I like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) The rest is alright. Impact - Comments about the MH and preparations sections have been given and addressed off-wiki, so I'll continue here: One thing I noticed throughout is that on several occasions the article refers to the precipitation totals from Lenny as "record rainfall," but never does it clarify why they are in fact regarded as such. That's because the TCR didn't clarify either :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Four families required evacuation due to damage. – Sounds a bit funny without much inline context. I don't think it really needs context. It's self explanatory. Four families had to leave their houses (aka evacuate) due to damage). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) High waves capsized a boat, which required rescue for its crew of three. – A tad ungrammatical. Changed to "After high waves capsized a boat, a crew of three required rescue." Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) across the nation the hurricane's impact was worse than from Hurricane Luis four years prior. – Maybe "[...] the hurricane's impact was worse than that from Hurricane Luis"? I think it's worth noting when Luis was though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) In western Grenada, high waves affected much of the coastline, destroying 21 small boats, as well as causing significant beach erosion. → "[...] high waves affected much of the coastline, destroying 21 small boats and causing significant beach erosion." K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Similar problem as above here "In Saint John Parish, the storm knocked out the water and power supply, as well as forcing several families to evacuate their damaged houses." Avoid using the "as well as + -ing" verb form for list-like fragments. I'll do it, but is there a reason to avoid "as well as + -ing". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) For an impact section as thorough and captivating as this one, a closing sentence like "Effects from the storm reached as far south as Tobago" feels inadequate. I want to know more! :( What were the effects in Tobago? Any info at all would be awesome. Auree ★ 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Added! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Aftermath On November 23, U.S. President Bill Clinton declared the U.S. Virgin Islands as a disaster area, which allocated the territory for federal funding for loans to public and private entities, as well as providing 75% of the cost of debris removal. – I've read this sentence over and over, and each time I come up with a slightly different meaning. Clarification and some tightening would be great. Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) After the storm's damage on Saint Martin → "In response to the damage on Saint Martin"? Yea! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) When I read "The Dominican government," I think of the Dominican Republic. How about "The government of Dominica" to avoid similar confusion among readers? Btw, the sentence it's in is a bit verbose. Split. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Two instances of "high damage" in the rest of the Aftermath section. Changed the other one. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) One last quibble before I stop pestering you :P Per MoS, shouldn't we italicize rather than bold names? Lousy vestige from an old version of the article. I prefer using neither. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference 44 contains a dead link. Moreover, I question the reliability of the website Australian Severe Weather as a source, which has been used as such on at least one other occasion in the article (reference 43). I think it's best to remove both of these entirely and possibly find more reliable sources as replacements.

   Ref 44 opens fine for me. I used that source because it contained useful information. Although I realize GP cited ReliefWeb, I could not find where he got the info. However, GP sources have been used for FA's, seeing as he has also been cited by the NOAA, so the source has been determined to be reliable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   But I wasn't even talking about GP being reliable or not; I was talking about Australian Severe Weather. It looks like a forum/blog-esque site to me. Auree ★ 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   Ooh, I gotcha. Yea, the AUS Severe Weather just has a reproduction of GP's summary. Several sites have it, and that is the one I typically use. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is probably the best quality the article has to offer. Excellent coverage!

One minor quibble though: Should it mention why the WMO retired Lenny? I'm not quite sure readers will understand why it was retired, or even what retirement is without the elaboration. I also think there's a wikilink for tropical cyclone name retirement, though I'm not too sure.

I didn't want to do too much original research, but adding "due to the damage" stuff I think should be sufficient. As for what retirement is, I think it's clear enough with "will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane". That's all retirement. I added the link. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

   I really like the images

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pass since it meets all of the criteria appreciably, aside from one that reference being a tad ambiguous qua reliability. I won't hold up the review because of it, since it's only one source for a very short sentence and the article would easily pass without it. Good work! Auree ★ 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)