Talk:Climate of the Tampa Bay area/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Precipitation trends section, "Outside of the summer rainy season, most of the area's precipitation is delivered by the occasional passage of a weather front[3].", the period should come before the source. Do the same in the 2004 Tropical Season section. Also in the Precipitation trends section, "Because of frequent summer storms, Tampa has a pronounced wet season, receiving an average of about 28 inches of rain from June and September but only about 18 inches during the remaining eight months of the year", add "Bay" after Tampa, cause the body of the article ignores what's in the lead, so. Same section, "The historical averages during the late summer, especially September, are augmented by tropical systems, which can easily dump many inches of rain in one day", "dump" doesn't seem to be the right word in the sentence. In the Winter area, "In the winter, the low in the Tampa Bay area rarely drops below freezing (32 °F , 0 °C)", what do you mean with "low"? Same thing in the Springs section, "However, the calm is occasionally disturbed by the arrival of late-season cold fronts", what do you mean with "calm"? In the Summer section, "Tornados" ---> "Tornadoes". In the Hurricanes section, is there a period missing in the first sentence, between October and Rain, of the first paragraph? In the 2004 Tropical Season section, there are periods missing in, "The region was affected by a record four hurricanes that year; Frances, Jeanne, Charley, and to a lesser extent, Ivan[180]", "Jeanne and Frances passed over Tampa as tropical storms after making their way across the state from the east coast[19][20]", and "But the storm made a sudden and unexpected turn to the northeast and brought only tropical storm force winds to the region, devastating the Ft. Myers/Port Charlotte area instead[21]".
Half-check.
Should be finished now. I found the three last occasions of this problem, I think. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Throughout the article, link "precipitation", "cumulus", "Atlantic Basin", and "Port Charlotte" to their correspondence articles. In the lead, it would be best to add (USDA) after "United States Department of Agriculture", I mean I know what it is, how 'bout your reader. Also in the lead, there are hyphens instead of endashes. Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Spring section, is "Storm of the Century" supposed to be in quotes?In the Summer section, it would be best if "Gulf of Mexico" was linked once, per here.
Half-check.
I added the extra Gulf of Mexico wikilink, as you suggested, and some additional rain wikilinks. The first line of 1b was solved already. If not, point out the occurrence. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Half-check. What? No, I said to link "Gulf of Mexico" once, per here.
Then you can understand my previous confusion, considering that Gulf of Mexico was already wikilinked once. I reverted one of the wikilinks, per the overlink problem you linked to. I'm guessing you still don't see where precipitation, cumulus, and Atlantic Basin are wikilinked? In the summer section, cumulus has a wikilink. The other two terms are wikilinked under the hurricane section. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I made it clear to link "Gulf of Mexico" once, not link it again. Yes, I understand they link to an article, the only problem is that they are disambiguations, you know, article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. That's what I meant. Anyways, I fixed the disambiguations, so check.

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References 4, 6, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are missing Publisher info. Also, References 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 need to have consistency with the other sources.
Half-check. Reference 4 is missing Publisher info.
That should be solved now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

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:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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):

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
In the Hurricane section, this ---> "The area feels some effect from passing tropical systems almost every year, but direct hits are rare", sounds like POV.
Check.

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

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:
~~Image:Tampa Snow.jpg has a weak FUR.~~

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Can a caption be given for Image:Tampabaylandsat.jpg?
Check.

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

~~-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~
Think we've resolved your concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. It should be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Secondary GA review[edit]~~
There are instances of non-encyclopedaic wording in the Spring and 2004 Hurricane Season sections which need to be reworded. There are several instances where imperial units have not been converted over to metric. Since this is a climate article, I was expecting to see a section or paragraph on Tampa's wind climatology, but I did not see it. Reference 7 is a blog, which is not usable as a source per wikipedia standards. The web page listed as reference 12 has no information to support the line mentioned previously...where within that website is the page that substantiates that line? As an act of good will, I've significantly helped you with issue 2 listed above. These issues need to be addressed as well for GA passage. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks for the suggestions and assistance. I have a couple of questions, though. One, I don't see any "non-encyclopedic wording" in the sections you indicated. Could you point it out (or fix it)?~~
And what do you mean by Tampa's "wind climatology"? Looking through a bunch of articles in the "Climate by city" category, I couldn't find any examples to help. In fact, I discovered that there's more info about local wind patterns here than in any of those entries. There also isn't a wikipedia article with that title. Perhaps a mention of prevailing winds is what you mean?...
Thanks again. It's nice to have an expert looking this over. Zeng8r (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be wind information specifically for Tampa Bay through the Southern Region Climate Center website. There should be links to it in the Climate of Florida wikipedia article (you edited that one too, right?) If you can't find it by this time tomorrow, I'll search for the website myself and give you the html address. Non-encyclopedaic wording would be words such as "violent", "batter the area", and "slamming"; in other words, words and phrases you'd never find in an encyclopedia. Charley's devastation is worthy, so I don't think using that term is going too far there, but I'd check with the primary reviewer, especially if this is a new topic to them. Sometimes when you're too familiar to a topic, it can be a problem seeing issues that non-experts might notice. Squall lines are violent by definition anyhow. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I didn't look at the Florida climate article too closely (only edited it superficially), but I see what you mean now, and there is indeed a useful link in the references. Thanks again for the tips; I'll run down the issues you and Thinkblue pointed out as time allows over the next few days, and hopefully other editors join in. Zeng8r (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~extension?[edit]~~
Can we get an extension on the GA nomination hold? My 2 y/o has pnuemonia (just came back from the after-hours clinic, actually) so my wikitime has been limited to a few minutes here and there lately. Thanks... Zeng8r (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My kid's ok and I'm back online and it seems that the issues here have been pretty much solved. Good work - what's left to do? Zeng8r (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're back to editing, add the wind information from those SRCC links I pointed you towards. As far as I can tell, I've solved the other issues. But interpretation hasn't been easy. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]