Talk:Hurricane Cindy (1963)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer:Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The second sentence in the lede is a run-on. There should either be a fullstop or a semicolon somewhere in there.
  • You should say the peak winds somewhere in the lede.
  • "left $12.5 million (1963 USD; $89.7 million 2011 USD)" - $12.5 million what? Lottery earnings? GDP growth? :P
  • "200 miles (322 km)" - watch for rounding, both here and throughout the article. If the first unit is rounded, the other ones should be too.
  • Is there any further info on why Cindy moved the way it did and how it strengthened so much?
  • "The warnings were extended to include Galveston, Texas and Vermillion Bay, Louisiana and small boats were told to remain in port while shipping traffic in the path of Hurricane Cindy were warned of the deteriorating conditions." - could you re-word so it isn't so much of a run-on?
  • "Inland, the Weather Bureau stated in their advisory that flood warnings will be issued since the storm was forecast to bring heavy rain to eastern Texas and western Louisiana." - that is much longer than is needed. Please cut down a bit
  • "Another Weather Bureau center in Corpus Christi, Texas, stated in its advisory that Cindy was no threat to the city as the center of the storm was moving northeastward." - two problems. First, Cindy was never moving northeastward, and second, that isn't really information. Saying something is not a threat isn't generally encyclopediac.
  • For that matter, the entire preps section is rather bloated. There is no need to go into what NWS office issued what warning, particularly if multiple agencies say evacuate. I also think it is useless saying what the predicted tides are, since what matters is what actually happens.
  • Can you cut down on the rainfall in Louisiana and focus more on what the storm did there? Unless each rainfall total has some relevance, they should not all be there. Most notably, you don't have the peak rainfall in LA, which is mentioned here.
  • Why is there a damage breakdown for each Texas county? It's not like they were that high, even for that time period. What's more important is what the storm actually did.
  • BTW, "$897 thousand" just looks bad.
  • You mention the eye of Cindy twice in the opening Texas paragraph. Try rewording so it isn't so redundant.
  • Fun fact that's pointless in terms of the article, but Cindy's disaster declaration was the last before JFK died.
  • I notice there aren't any newspaper stories. There are 148 through the Google news archive, which I'm sure will help expand the article beyond its heavy focus on preparations, expectations, and meteorological reports.

In short, the article seems to resemble a hurricane article from three years ago - too much focus on trivial details, and not enough of the bigger picture. I am going to fail the GAN, since there is a lot of work that should be done to get this article in line with other WPTC GA's. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)