Talk:Hurricane Keith/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

While this was certainly an important storm, I believe the article has too many problems to satisfy today's GA criteria. The article was passed in 2006, and since then the GA standards have risen considerably. To highlight the major problems, I will reassess the article against the criteria below. Auree ^★★ 09:25, 25 May 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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice,fiction, and lists):
Prose - While the article is decently written, there are several instances of obtuse wording, awkward constructions, and bias. Some examples include: "This led to a deadly situation of waiting for the storm to finally recede" (vague), "Several injuries, mainly from flying debris, were reported in San Pedro, but fortunately, no fatalities" (editorializing), and " The total damages in the state rose to $115.6 million (2000 MXN, US$12.2 million in year 2000), with the damage to urban infrastructure being the most expensive portion of the damage, with $44.2 million (2000 MXN, US$4.6 million in 2000) used to repair damage in eight municipalities; in particular, San Pedro Garza García received approximately three quarters of the infrastructure damage, with $30.8 million (2000 MXN, $3.3 million 2000 USD)" (long, awkward run-on).

MoS - In addition to some dubious choice of words, the article suffers from underlinking of in particular meteorological jargon (just from the first half of the MH: "tropical wave", "development", "upper level shear", "anticyclone"), while on the other hand some overlinking is present in the impact and aftermath sections. Aesthetically, the lead seems disproportionally large and detailed for such an otherwise short article (see criterion 3).
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
While the references used in the article are reliable and of high quality (and properly archived, kudos!), some contentious claims—most importantly "Keith was a very difficult hurricane to forecast. Its strength extremes and its stalling offshore Belize caused many problems to forecasters. This led to a deadly situation of waiting for the storm to finally recede"—are not supported by any sources and could therefore be construed as original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This is one of the article's more pressing issues. For such a significant hurricane, the article seems to lack coverage on some of the storm's aspects, in particular ~~the meteorological history~~, the preparations (I imagine for a dangerous Category 4 there must have been more evacuations/preps in Belize and the Yucatan Peninsula?), and aftermath sections. While the impact section contains a reasonable amount of info, it includes several short and stubby paragraphs and could be represented in a more cohesive manner. There also seems to be a lack of information for Central America outside Belize, where the storm caused half of the total deaths. Additionally, most sources are reports dated 2000–2001, so perhaps more recent reports as well as news articles and books can be scouted, ideally some in Spanish too. Overall, while the article does contain plenty useful information and isn't in of need significant expansion, I feel it falls just short of today's standards, especially when more information on the storm exists.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Overall no problems here, aside from some slight cases of editorializing noted above.
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):
Generally OK, though the images could be reordered to avoid a right-aligned wall, and some of the captions could be more descriptive.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I believe these issues are solvable in the short term and will leave the article on hold for two weeks so they can be addressed. If no efforts are made to improve the article by then, I will delist it as a GA. Auree ^★★ 09:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I believe the MH should be good for now. I rewrote it and expanded it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts; certainly a major improvement! Have struck the bits that highlighted the MH issues. Auree ^★★ 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

To help speed up the process, I will list some sources that could prove beneficial to the article below:

Important note

Large portions of the impact section are cited by reference 2; however, this reference does not support majority of the information for Belize. Furthermore, what little is supported by the source is very closely paraphrased, nearing copyvio grounds. These are critical issues and show that the way the article is sourced is of poor quality. A thorough run-through of the citations is required, which may slow the progress of this review. Auree ^★★ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything has been addressed. Is it better in your eyes? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. My only remaining question is if there's any aftermath for Mexico and Central America outside Belize and Nicaragua. That seems to be the only thing the article is lacking. After this has been addressed the article can keep its GA status, pending a copy-edit I will perform myself. Great work, you guys! Auree ^★★ 02:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was nothing else in ReliefWeb (and damage wasn't particularly extreme in Mexico), I don't believe there is any additional aftermath. That being the case, can this GA review be closed? It's been open for five months. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pyrotec

I'll take over this review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, the review (WP:GAN) that I was working on at the time has just been finished. It took somewhat longer than I would have wished.
It's probably easier if I just work my way through the article. So I'm going to start at the Meteorological history and finish with the Lead. As this is a relative short article, I should get this done over this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history -

In the first paragraph there is some technical jargon "....(NHC) initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Fifteen at 2100 UTC.[3]", that is unclear. I'm not sure that it is English, either. An explanation or wikilinks needs to be provided for the clause: "initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Fifteen". The rest I can understand.

Initiate means to begin, so basically that means "began advisories". UTC is a time, similar to EDT or PDT. UTC is linked too. Is that fine? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done So, are you saying it saying it means "....(NHC) began advisories on Tropical Depression Fifteen at 2100 UTC.[3]"? I still don't think that this is written in English. I understand UTC, so NHC did something at 9 pm, but its not clear what they did. I'm marking this down as non-compliance with WP:WIAGA Clause 1(a). (See also, comments below). Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know how that's not in English. They began advisories... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below. Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations 2 & 3 appear to provide conflicting information, one states that warnings were issued, the other states that no watches or warnings are issued at this time, but it does use the words: "Tropical Depression Fifteen".

Well, ref 3 is from when the storm is active, but ref 2 is from after the fact. They're not contradictory, just from different time periods. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I raised this is that I not understand "initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Fifteen", the article still not explain it. Ref 3 is being used as the citation for "...the National Hurricane Center (NHC) initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Fifteen at 2100 UTC." Ref 3 is timestamped 5 PM EDT and according to wikipeida EDT is UTC-5, so I assume that is 2200 UTC (which is one hour after 2100 UTC, but that is not an issue). It states that no watches or warnings are issued at this time, but it does use the words: "Tropical Depression Fifteen" and it does suggest that progess of the system should be monitored. So is this document "advise", which is presumably what is intended by the American word "advisories"? Perhaps "advisories", is the pural form? Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory is a relatively common word. The National Hurricane Center began issuing advisories (defined by dictionary.com as "a report on existing or predicted conditions") on the Tropical Depression at that time, and since it was advisory number one, that was the first one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use British English and the article uses American English, so that does sometimes present problems in understanding / communications. The Lead clearly states that (Keith) was "The fifteenth tropical cyclone, eleventh named storm, and seventh hurricane of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season,", but so far I've not seen this information so clearly in the body of the article. Perhaps its not there, or perhaps is just implied / inferred. The first paragraph in the Meteorological history section is about what becomes Tropical Depression Fifteen and the final sentence states "... NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Keith,...". The second and third paragraphs are about Keith. I've not yet got to the lead, but if there is material in the lead that is not in the body of the article, then that will be a non-compliance with WP:WIAGA Clause 1(b).

The whole of this part of the discussion here is longer than the paragraph in the article. That to me indicates that this first paragraph needs some attention (perhaps not a lot). Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was that much of a stretch to assume that people would get "Tropical Depression Fifteen" is the fifteenth tropical depression. As far as Keith being the eleventh named storm, K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet. I clarified it with the wording slightly by adding a link to tropical cyclone naming. Does that need further explanation? With regards to the seventh hurricane, I added a link. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. Hopefully, I will not need to revisit this section when I come to checking the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 uses the words "TROPICAL DEPRESSION FIFTEEN DISCUSSION NUMBER 1" (original text is in caps), but what does 15 refer to, is it (for example) a "strength" or a serial number.

When tropical storms are first initiated in the Atlantic, they're given a number as a tropical depression. TD 15 means the 15th tropical depression. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the Lead does make that point, but I'm doing the lead last. Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume, since this is a 2000 hurricane, it was the 15th one in 2000? Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of this section looks OK.

Preparations -

This section looks OK.

Impact -
- Untitled first subsection -

This subsection looks OK.

- Belize -

This subsection looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Mexico -

This subsection looks OK.

- Elsewhere -

...stopping for now. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection looks OK.

Aftermath -

I fixed a {{cite news}} link which was (wrongly) using coauthor instead for author links, giving rise to a warning message. There were no coauthors.
Otherwise, this section looks OK.

WP:Lead -

OK. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Looking at the article's history (here), this article has been expanded considerable since this review was opened by Aureeback on 25 May 2013. In the light of recent minor changes to the article, I'm closing this review with a "keep" status. As such, the article keeps its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank those editors who have helped improve this article, Well Done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing! :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]