Well, here it goes. My first storm article FAC. I've spent a lot of time doing research, and it's as comprehensive as it's going to get. More importantly, I worked on the article, so it has to be good! I appreciate any and all comments. Thanks, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: All images appear to check out, as with most the nitty-gritty MoS stuff. Calor (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Nice work. Could do with a third party copy-edit. There are some unwikilinked jargon and silly typos that you're not seeing because you're too close to it. Examples would be "sparked some convection" and "In all, Barry is estimated to have caused $30 million (2001 USD, $36.5 million 2008 USD)." respectively. NB The photos look a little small and possibly could do with further thought regarding placement. --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to recruit a copyeditor (or just hack away at it myself). I'm not sure, however, what needs to be done with that later example. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a word missing. "Damage" perhaps? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, got it. I guess your right that I don't see these things because I'm so close to the article. :) JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "[t]he photos look a little small and possibly could do with further thought regarding placement", they look fine on my resolution. The thumbnail sizes aren't fixed, so they conform to your preferences. my preferences → Files → Thumbnail size. PlasticupT/C 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Drop me a line when the copy-edit's done and I'm fairly sure I'll be able to come back here and make that a Support. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe better, but not good enough. As we saw beautifully with the missing word "damage", you're too close to it. Get a 3rd party, preferably one that knows little about storms. I noticed, for example, that it's not till the third mention of convection/convective that the word gets wikilinked. I have this exact same problem when I write cricket articles. They're jargon-heavy and need to be clear. I usually get two c-es from people who know little or nothing about cricket. This article's shorter and you probably only need one, but you certainly need at least one. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport —This is part of a comment by Plasticup (of 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
However, the precursor to Barry dropped higher amounts of rain across southern Florida, which led to significant flooding and structural damage. - is this Allison that did the damage? Or was Barry's damage amplified because a previous system (Allison?) had already saturated the soil? It is mentioned again in the "Impact" section.
The storm that caused the damage was the tropical wave that would eventually become Barry. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting. You might want to make it more explicit because right now it is somewhat unclear what "precursor" means. PlasticupT/C 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
On the whole the article looks great and I will have no trouble giving this my support. PlasticupT/C 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
All comments addressed, article looks good. Support. PlasticupT/C 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Looks good. I'm going through it with a copyedit. I have a few questions though:
I cannot see the pattern in wikilinking of dates, some seem to be and others not.
"Outflow in the eastern semi-circle was good,..." - what does 'good' mean here? Is unhindered outflow good, or is it something we don't want to see?
"Prior to landfall, banding features developed..." - is 'banding' referring to the storm or to the images of the storm? Could you be more clear on what it means? --maclean 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit and comments. I think I removed all of the date wikilinks. As for the second point, I tried to rewrite the sentence to make it more clear. About the third point, I'm not sure how I could explain it better. The banding features developed as part of the storm. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Support and comment Nice article, very comprehensive. One minor thing, Panhandle in the lead to a non-American means either nothing or Texas. Can it be linked as Panhandle, and kill the later link? jimfbleak (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Rereading again this morning, when less tired, picked up a couple of infelicities which I fixed, please check history to make sure you are happy with changes. I can't make up my mind about some convection as opposed to convection so I've left as is. jimfbleak (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Your changes looked good. I agree that "some" is redundant, so I removed it. (I read Tony1's guide on that, and I don't know how I forgot to not use "some".) –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note, mishmash on dates here. There is some faulty spacing around endashes (when the date elements that are connected with a dash have spaces, the endash is spaced), and there is partial date linking. Is the article linking dates or is it not?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Faulty dash fixed. I tried to keep the article free of autoformatted dates, thought the remaining links must have slipped in during a copyedit or something. In any event, I fixed that too. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 22:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Support with only some very minor niggles in the lead:
"As the storm's remnants tracked inland; parts of the Mississippi Valley received light precipitation" - fix the punctation
"In all, Barry is estimated" - is the "in all" needed?