Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2010)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snagged another one. I love doing hurricane reviews, the quality out the gate makes them painless. I've got two reviews in front of this one, so give me a few hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

My first thoughts are that this storm really hasn't done that much. One person died, very far from the storm, due to rip currents. I wouldn't even really consider that a direct death, but I'm fuzzy on the direct/indirect death line. There's also no indication that this produced significant damages. I'd like your opinion as to why this storm merits an article, as opposed to being merged into the 2010 season article.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- This needs a good copyedit. I tried to do it using red text and green text, but it was taking too long. I'll do the CE myself, shortly after I post this.

- To be completely honest, the quality of writing here is poorer than I have become used to seeing in tropical storm articles. It appears to me that you didn't copyedit your own work before submitting it, and the text dosen't flow well. I did an initial pass of the lead, but I'd like to get one of the other hurricane writers to look this over as well. I simply don't understand the terminology well enough, but I can tell that the text, especially in the first paragraph of the Meteorological history section, needs work.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Possible issue

- I can't get any of the webcitation.org pages to open for me. I'll try again later, but I can't pass this until I see the sources.

b. proper citation use:

- See 2a

c. no original research:

- See 2a

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Needs work

- Last sentence is "Further north, waves between 1 and 2 ft (0.30 and 0.61 m) were expected in New England as a result of Colin." - did they pan out? If they did, say that and source it. If they didn't, say that and source it or just remove the whole line. I can't check that source myself (see 2a).

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

Acceptable

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

See my opening comments about the validity of this as a stand alone article. Also see 2a (if you didn't read it above or go to it any of the four times before this that I said "see 2a"). Technically, once 1a, 2a, and 3a are cleared this article would meet GA standards, but I don't see it sticking around as an article in the long term. Your choice as if you want to withdraw and merge or go ahead, I'm just letting you know what I, a non-hurricane writer, thought. Sven Manguard (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- On closer examination, I don't think that I can pass this at this time. There are two issues at play here. First, as stated above, I really don't see this storm as warranting an article. Second, I really don't think that the prose meets GA standards. Now the first can be argued and the second fixed, but right now, it's not looking good. I'm going to drop a line to a few people and see what they think, and I want to hear back from you too, before I make any decisions on closing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the prose is quite poor (no offense TAWX!) for a tropical cyclone article; just fail it. No comment on notability. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't want to do that, but it looks like it needs a total rewrite. Or a merge, but at the very least, it needs to be heavily cleaned up. Feel free to resubmit this when you're ready. As a matter of personal policy, I will not do a GAN on an article I already did a GAN for. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PROMOTED In light of the above, mainly per criteria 1a. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your question, there should be no question of nobility for this article, as it has been discussed before. I'll admit I was probably a little sloppy on this article though, you should find Maria in much better shape. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]