Talk:Tropical Storm Irene (1959)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.21 SM

Starting comments:

This is my second Hurricane related GAN in a row, and again I am impressed. You all seem to have your act together and you bring things to GAN when they're ready, not before, which is a very good thing.

Please note that I am claiming WikiCup points for this. It would appear you are as well Hurricanefan25?

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- I tried to copyedit as I went, but I got EC'd by both you and TropicalAnalystwx13. I'll come back in a few hours and CE it then. It does need a CE, for a few minor clarity issues, but I can do that once this settles.

- From the lead "The front moved into the Gulf of Mexico on October 5, but its associated trough remained" - I'm not sure what this means. Please reword the part after the comma.

- From the M. History section "Irene originated from a shortwave aloft over the Midwestern United States that drifted through Texas, accompanied an associated cold front on October 4. The system progressed into the Gulf of Mexico on October 5 as the front dissipated, though a related trough remained." - I cannot make heads or tails of this. How about "Irene originated when an XXX (shortwave trough over the Midwestern United States?) collided/merged/interacted/etc. with YYY (at location)" Reading that paragraph, how it is formed isn't made clear. Did it just appear, or did something have to happen to make it appear? What is the role of the cold front? What is the importance of the trough remaining?

- From the same section "At this time, a Colorado low above the Mississippi Valley drew polar air into the area." - What is the significance of this fact? Could you add a sentence? Please keep in mind that what is common knowledge to you may be lost on the reader. Overall you did a good job with this, especially with your handling of anticyclone, but here a bit of context would be appreciated.

- ~~Critical!~~ CorenSearchBot search came up clean. That being said, I'm uncomfortable with how close sentences from the article line up with the http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/mwr_pdf/1959.pdf source. You're only taking sentances, and you're rewording them, but it's still pretty close. I'm not sure what to do about it though. They're very much raw facts, so perhaps rewording is the best that can be done.

Plagiarism is always and has always been a concern for me in these articles; it's hard not to, though I did my best to fix it up. HurricaneFan 25 — 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Neat trick. Crossing off.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

-If anything, your lead is too comprehensive, but that can be attributed to how little there is to say about the storm itself. It's not objectionworthy enough for me to object though.

I usually write longer ledes these days (e.g. Hurricane Debra (1959) and Hurricane Cindy (1959)). It's become a bit of a habit ;)

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references:

Acceptable

b. proper citation use:

Acceptable

c. no original research:

Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects:

Acceptable

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

- It has a bias towards clockwise rotation

5. Stable: Question

- You prepared this article in your sandbox, only bringing live right before putting it up at GAN. If anything, this is too stable. As far as I can tell I am only the second person to see or edit it. This makes it quite the strange case, and I'm not going to lie - I'm not comfortable with it. Do you mind particularly if I leave this nomination open for a week to let the article decant?

I wouldn't mind, though there really aren't that many editors in this topic area. Lots of articles, a half dozen editors. HurricaneFan 25 — 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 have alt texts:

Acceptable

- Neither really needed one, but I added one for the second image anyways.

b. article is suitable for solid copy export:

Acceptable

c. catch all general aesthetics:

Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

To be blunt, despite this being a technically complete article, the storm just didn't do much of anything. I worry that six months from now, it's going to just get merged back into the season article, like what's being seen at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates#2003 Atlantic hurricane season. That being said, this is going to pass on the merits of meeting the GA criteria. What happens six months from now is inconsequential to the review.

Once this is passed, and I see no reason why it wouldn't, the only storm left in the season is the 1959 Escuminac hurricane. That and the 1959 season article are the only things left before 1959 becomes a good topic. If you want, I'd be happy to do the reviews for either or both of those; I can't stress enough how nice it is to to GANs for articles that need so little improvement. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's still Judith (which I believe has some more impact than this one, around Cindy's amount?) then I'll be getting around to fix it. This storm did a "bit" – which usually in the WikiProject results in articles like these being kept, though TD 7 did nothing. HurricaneFan 25 — 18:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to chime in, but I was likewise worried about the scant amount of impact info. What makes this storm notable enough for an article? There were no deaths and minimal damage. In fact, I'm going to bring up a merge discussion. Sven, could you keep this on hold until such discussion is complete? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Hurricanehink. I'm still not entirely sure what does and does not qualify for an article with tropical cyclones yet. I've gotten 'enough information for an article' and 'causes damage or loss of life' type generic responses, but I've yet to see a rubric. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the problem. We don't really know either, but it's generally whether the info that exists establishes the storm as reasonably notable. Simply having information isn't sufficient, as that could lend toward including a lot of trivia. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION FAILED - This could have passed, but a consensus of Hurricane writers, including the author of the article and nominator of this GAN, have opted to merge this into the 1959 season article. It is my recommendation as a 'neutral third party' that if the 1959 season article get bundled into a Good/Featured Topic nomination, that this work here (now in that article) would qualify HurricaneFan25 for getting points from that article in the WikiCup.

Because the talk page where the merge consensus may be deleted after the merge, I am preserving it here:

Thread: "==Merge?=="

Before this passes GA, I am wondering if the article should even exist. I did a test here, and the article's entire prose, if merged into the season article, would only be two lines longer than the IHS. I'm sure the prose could be tightened and it could be as long as the infobox. As I mentioned in the GA review, the storm did hardly anything. No deaths, minimal impact overall. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to clarify that I do believe it's well written. But, as Sven mentioned, we should establish now if the storm is notable enough for an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I'll merge it myself. HurricaneFan 25 — 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to get merged, then I should mark the GA review 'failed', so that someone dosen't find this six months from now, still opened, and come looking for us. I'll wait until I'm told that the merge is complete before I do it, because until then this is a valid GAN on the cusp of passing. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, merge it for length reasons, not notability reasons. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, the article has been merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm closing this. A shame, I can tell that HurricaneFan25 put good effort into this. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is a shame, but at least the content goes somewhere else, it is not like it's totally lost. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]