Talk:Tropical Storm Harold/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: IrishSurfer21 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to review this later or tomorrow. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It may take a bit long since I am going to be busy these next few weeks, but I’ll do my best to keep up with this review.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to help as well to keep up with the review. Jay Tee⛈️ 02:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Any word on the review? Jay Tee⛈️ 01:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows the MoS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Proper assortment of references.
	2b. 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).	Some problems with inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some problems of OR on the last sentence of MH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some minor problems with broadness.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of instability, most edits are for expansion.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Every image is okay and tagged with their particular license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.

Finally reviewing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Nothing wrong currently! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

Use the {{rp}} template on source 1, the ~~first~~, second, third iteration, and the fourth iteration mentions page 2, so put that.
Convection increased over the northern of the wave After northern, add 'part'.
Remove the first iteration of source 1, since the second iteration is also after the source.
You can include some text in source 9 to Preparations and impact, since the ref is a warning.
Can you add another reliable source with source 17? The source does not follow the sentence clearly, just being a map. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer Completed first three bullets. Couldn't find anything in Ref 9 that wasn't already in Prep/Impacts. Deleted Source 17 after realizing it contradicted the TCR. Jay Tee⛈️ 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact

from the mouth of the Rio Grande river, at the Texas-Mexico border, up to Port O'Connor, The source does not mention this.

Added source that mentions this.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not show the news article, it shows instead a page to "be ready" for a hurricane.
It would be better to use the {{rp}} template for source 1.
A light pole at a McDonald's restaurant was also knocked down. What's so significant about this? And even if it's significant, that you should make it plural, since the source states two restaurants.

Rewrote sentence and merged with previous sentence.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

threatening unhatched sea turtle eggs Can you explain why it's significant?
A portable toilet was blown over by strong winds on a Padre Island beach, disposing large puddles of waste. Authorities warned visitors to keep away from these puddles as they could be inhabited by snakes. Is this significant? Can a porta-potty be mentioned in a Wikipedia article?
Source 33 does not mention the campus.
There are two renditions of Source 3 in 'Elsewhere', you can remove the first rendition.
Add translation to source 54-56. DoneIrishSurfer21 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all points. Deleted the parts about the eggs, McDonalds and porta potty as they were trivial details. Adjusted repetitive sources. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments

There's a lot of local news mentioned in here, which shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Other than that, the article looks good, and can easily go to GA. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Will check the rest later. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer How's it looking? Jay Tee⛈️ 06:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Please finish your review. You have been extremely active recently and yet have still not finished this review after nearly 3 weeks of holding it. Not only that, you have taken on several more GAN reviews since then, which make your actions appear negligent. Please do not take on GA reviews if you are not willing to take on the time to complete them. TheBritinator (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh.. Finally done with the review, you can answer the comments. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32 Ping. TheBritinator (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five bullets are still uncompleted. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer And I just got to them. Everything should be addressed now. You mentioned local news sources should be removed, is there a specific reason why and if so, which sources do you think should go? Jay Tee⛈️ 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.