Talk:March 11–15, 2018 nor'easter

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:March 11–15, 2018 nor'easter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I should be able to review this within the next few days, most likely by the end of the day Monday :) --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   This is generally well-written, but I have some qualms which I have detailed in #Comments.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I am interpreting the damage figure in the infobox as falling under WP:CALC, since all four sources backing it up come from the NCEI.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The math for the damage in the infobox isn't quite correct. Taking the $544k from the first source and adding the $125k from the second source yields a sum of $669k, which does not corroborate with the infobox value of $729k. However, when the Illinois and Indiana damages (as mentioned in §Midwestern United States) are included, the result is indeed $729k. The two references used for the damage totals in that section should be added to the infobox.

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The citation templates for the first two sources are incomplete.

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• This Weather Underground page (reference #4 in the article at time of writing) is a word-for-word, format-verbatim repost of this Weather Channel news article (reference #3); Weather Underground was acquired by The Weather Company in 2012. I think the duplicate source should be removed, and the material for which it is currently used as a citation instead referenced to the original TWC article.

 Done, I've removed the Weather Underground source as you noted it is a duplicate of The Weather Channel source. Replaced with The Weather Channel source. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The footnote should be fixed up a bit. "Low-pressure area's pressure" reads rather awkwardly, and the TWC article and NWS Albany recap should be cited as references instead of hyperlinked in the text.

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The lede states that Methuen had the highest accumulation in Massachusetts (28.3 inches); however, the NBC Boston article lists a higher figure for Wilmington (31.0 inches).

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Did Woodford, VT receive 48 inches or 50 inches? The article gives conflicting sources on this.

 Done. The source for the 48 inches states that the totals are "unofficial" and is close to the event, while the source given for the 50-inch total is a secondary source. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• In §Massachusetts, bringing wind gusts around 50–60 miles per hour (80–97 km/h) – the Boston Herald article used as a source here states 55–65 mph.

 Done, changed per The Boston Herald source. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The news article currently used as reference #6 is from November 2018.

 Removed, as that concerns a different winter storm, not this one. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• In §Meteorological history, there is a "however" capitalized directly after a comma. Not quite sure what's going on in that sentence.

 Fixed. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Also in §Meteorological history, combined with a strong upper-level lift – this is minor but I don't think the "a" is needed here.

 Removed. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Also also in §Meteorological history, snowfall was limited to lake-enhanced and higher elevations reads a bit clunkily. Maybe try "areas downstream from lakes and in higher elevations" instead?

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• In §North Carolina: Winter weather advisories were in effect for central portions of the state, and sleet, along with freezing rain, mixed with snow, causing hazardous road conditions and sleet accumulations. – this can probably be broken into two sentences. I would rephrase the second clause as "sleet and freezing rain mixed with snow..."

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• There's another run-on sentence in the same paragraph as the quote directly above.

 Done, I've split that run-on sentence. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Another one that could probably be split in half: The high-occupancy vehicle lane of Interstate 93 between Boston and Quincy was closed, and Boston mayor Marty Walsh declared a snow emergency in advance of the approaching winter storm, and issued a parking ban. In this same sentence, the source given does not verify the I-93 HOV lane closure.

 Split, pretty sure it was a misplaced reference on my end. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Another sentence split candidate: Most of the state received at least 12 inches (30 cm) of snow as blizzard conditions occurred, as Scituate recorded the highest snowfall total in Rhode Island, with 22 inches (56 cm).

 Done. ~ Tails Wx 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

--Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620, per your comments I've fixed everything now; feel free to review. ~ Tails Wx 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great work Tails, I think we're *mostly* good to go. Just a few small things:

• Mention of Montreal should probably be removed, as there are no sources backing up snow totals there and I'm having trouble finding some myself (only predictions of 40cm)
• The cost of damages in the NE US and South should be mentioned in the prose
• I think you accidentally self-reverted a couple of the fixes mentioned (specifically pertaining to upper-level lift and lake enhancement)

These are all small things and I can probably take care of them myself. For what it's worth, I did find this source on impacts in Nova Scotia. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, @Dylan620. And yes, those self-reverts were unintentional. I'll add the impacts in Nova Scotia per the source soon, thanks for finding it. ~ Tails Wx 21:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Okeley dokeley

With my concerns resolved, I feel comfortable passing the article. Well done again, Tails. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx 21:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)