Talk:Hurricane Barbara (2013)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"The rainbands of Barbara wrapped a large area around the circulation, and radar imagery indicated the eyewall is consistently becoming better defined." I don't understand what the first part is trying to say, and why is the second part in present tense?

Better?--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The cloud tops have warmed" Again, why present tense?~~

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"soon dissipated near 25 mi" near -> almost?~~

"About" --12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Lagunas de Chacahua to Boca de Pijijiapan" Links?~~

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"set up in 20 towns or hamlets." or -> and?~~

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"In addition, classes were suspended in Oaxaca." What kind of classes? Primary/secondary schools, colleges, continuing education, exercise?~~

Source does not clarify that.--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the Preparations section has a bunch of repetitiously structured short sentences in a row, making it read very choppily: In all,...In addition,...Meanwhile,...Furthermore... For instance, "Meanwhile, both large boats and small boats were anchored in Playa Manzanillo, to prevent the strong winds and rough seas. Furthermore, water sports were suspended in Acapulco." could be rewritten as "Both large and small boats were anchored in Playa Manzanillo, to prevent the strong winds and rough seas, and water sports were suspended in Acapulco." This combines a couple of short sentences to mix up the length thing, and removes the unnecessary/repetitive bridging words.

Followed your suggestion--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"to prevent the strong winds and rough seas." to prevent them from doing what? I don't think you mean the anchoring process made the winds and seas not happen, which is how it reads now.~~

"boats were anchored in Playa Manzanillo, to prevent being sunk by strong winds and rough seas"--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sentence referenced in the above two points ("Meanwhile...Acapulco") could use linking of the place names.~~

Acapulco is the only place that can be linked--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"shelters had to be accommodated for seven people." Huh? Does this mean that seven people took refuge in shelters?~~

Yes--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Guerrero, Veracruz." Should this be "Guerrero and Veracruz"?~~

Yes--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"caused severe flooding by resorts" by -> near?~~

Actually, the source doesn't say resorts were flooded, just roads near them--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Two people were killed in Oaxaca.", but then list three dead plus four missing/dead fishermen.

Fixed. Actually, if a person is missing, we do not count it as a fatality, unless a source says that the person(s) is/was presumed to have died.--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there no further sources to give finality to the story of the four missing fishermen? Have they been declared dead? Still missing?

The first case IIRC. Quick search confirms this Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a quick search confirms this, can it please be integrated into the article? And, if they're actually confirmed dead, they should be be added to the fatality total. Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the quick search did not mention any updates on the four missing people.

"In both cities, three shelters were opened," Three shelters were opened in each, or total?

Whoa, the source does not even mention shelters.--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm seeing underlinking of specific places (see comments above on linking) and overlinking in other places, especially states. For example, Chiapas is linked twice in the lead and three more times in the body, Guatemala is linked twice in the lead, Oaxaca is linked twice in the body, etc. Generally, one link to a topic in the lead and another in the body is quite sufficient.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Ref #33 (Georgina Saldierna) is a dead link.~~

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make sure that all non-English refs are marked as such. For example, see #37 (Declaran emergencia).~~

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes Noticias (refs #41 and 42) a reliable source? Also, is it Noticias or Noticias Net?~~

Looks reasonably reliable to me. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Noticias. Yes, the source is reliable because it is a Mexican newspaper.--12george1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latter, Noticias means "news" in Spanish apparently. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:07, 16 October 2013 (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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, the prose needs some work (beyond the copyedits I have made), and I have a couple of questions on the references. I'm placing the article on hold until the above can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. See my replies above on one point of prose, plus still waiting for replies/final comments on one prose niggle and one reference issue. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article when it was active as well, so I attempted to reply to the aforementioned issues. Cheers. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting on replies to the two unstruck prose issues above, I think, and then this should be good to go... Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This review has been ongoing for almost a month now. Anyway, EM-DAT, which is a source that is used as a final death toll, says that Barbara caused 4 fatalities. Go onto this page and select Mexico under Country, 2013 under Year, and Storm under Disaster type. With 3 deaths in Mexico, this probably means that one of the four missing people died or was presumed to have lost their life. As for the issue with Noticias, YE and I have already pointed out that it is a reliable source.--12george1 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, the other issue I was referring to was the issue regarding the shelters in the prose section, where you said the source doesn't even cover the information given. This needs to be rectified... Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I thought I removed that statement already (since I can neither clarify or find it in the source). AFAIK, there aren't any other sources that can verify that statement.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks good. Sorry for the miscommunication on what I was waiting for! Now passing the article... Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]