Talk:Hurricane Donna/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A number of refs, additional detail, convert templates, date wikilink removal, and rewriting was required to bring this article up to speed. It should be ready for GA now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added preparations and aftermath sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Because the retirement section is so short, consider combining it with the Aftermath section and renaming the section "Aftermath and retirement".~~

~~The lead should be expanded a bit. Please expand the second paragraph to include more information on the impact and damages of the storm.~~

~~In the Aftermath section, you say "Oxygen depletion due to those perishing in the hurricane caused additional mortality." I'm not really sure what you mean here...could you reword?~~

Done I think the issues from number 1 are now addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here - nice job. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Current ref 20 (Tabb) deadlinks.

A few areas need references:

The second and fourth paragraphs of the Meteorological history section.

The intro paragraph in the Impacts section. This is especially important given that you say the storm killed 364 people, but the following sections only account for 164.

The last sentence in the Elsewhere in the East Coast section.

The retirement section.

The source for the Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes chart should be turned into a formatted reference, rather than simply an external link

Please be consistent in how you cite your references. A couple of them currently use cite templates (which I prefer, although it's up to you), while most of them don't. Also, please make sure that the web references are formatted author (if available), title, publisher, access date.

Many of your web refs need publisher information.

Done I think I've done all I can here. Not all of the refs have obvious publisher information, because some of them are just websites, and weren't published in refereed journals. Placed all the refs in the same format (ref). I followed the more typical book format for the ref that won't accept the full web address, due to the brackets. I understand cite web is required for FA, but it isn't for GA, so I'd rather not go through all the extra time and effort to do it, since there are bots/editors out there that will do so anyhow after this passes GA. This happens frequently with the articles I write which pass through the GA process. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I said above, I didn't ask that you convert everything into the cite web template. I simply asked that you be consistent with either using it or not, as the first look I took through the article showed me that templates were used in a couple of times, but not in most instances. I have no problem with you not using the templates (I personally prefer them when writing articles, because I feel it makes them easier, but I have no problem with other people not using them).

The second half of the third paragraph of the Meteorological history section still needs a ref, as does the last little bit of the intro paragraph to the impact section.

As for the publishers for web references - the publisher for a ref is the company that posted it online or caused it to be printed, while the author is the one that actually wrote the piece. Sometimes they're one and the same, most often not. So, for example, for author for Ref 1 is Gordon Dunn, while the publisher is the Weather Bureau Office. For Ref 2, there is no author listed, but the publisher is the National Hurricane Center. Does this makes sense? Generally, refs are formatted author (if available), title, publisher, access date. ~~Also, refs should not have their titles in all capital letters, even if they are that way in the original source.~~ Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

There are quite a few little things that need to be done with references, as well as a few minor issues with prose and MOS, so I am putting the article on hold for seven days to give you time to address these. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your question on my talk page...Basically, I'm 99% sure the problem is the brackets in the link. They have to be there to make the link work, but WP in all its smartness is thinking that we want the bracketed area to be the full link, and so is cutting off most of the link. The upside...we know what's wrong; the downside...I have no idea how to go about fixing it. It's obviously an issue in formatting somewhere... Is there any other way you can link to this article? Or perhaps just drop the link altogether and cite the article as you would a print source? Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've dealt with all the necessary fixes at this time. Let me know if this is enough, in your eyes, for GA. One of the items you mentioned is (as I understand it) specifically for FA, not GA, passage. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your responses above. The article is not quite at GA status, although it is close. I'll probably start working on the issues I outlined above this morning if I get some time, and if I get them finished, I'll just go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on them as well, but not until tomorrow at the earliest. Today is a very busy day, both at work and home. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about cases where the author and publisher are the same? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an individual person (ex: Joe Smith is both the author and the publisher), then put that name in both fields, because it's possible for an individual person to be both the author and the publisher. If it's a company (ex: National Hurricane Center), just put the name in the publisher field. This is because the Center itself didn't write the piece - it's a company, a non-thinking entity, and therefore cannot write the stuff itself. Basically, some random staff member wrote the stuff, and even though you don't have that person's name, you can't say that they didn't write it. Does this make sense? Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has the inflation adjusted estimate in the infobox (which is in billions), but should that number be used in the prose? Or the original 1960's number?Potapych (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've properly formatted the refs, and removed the information on deaths split between direct and indirect (as this is what I was most worried about not having a source). The other section I mention that doesn't have a source (in the MH section), isn't really controversial, so doesn't need a source now, but it is something to keep on your list of things to do to further improve the article. One other thing would be to make sure that your dollar conversions match up. You have damages in 2008 dollars in the infobox, in 2006 dollars at one point in the impacts section, and in 2005 dollars in one of the charts. Pick a year and standardize them all.

Besides these things, the article looks good, and so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]