Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)/GA2

GA Review

Passed. E_F⁵ 18:40, 9 January 2025 (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: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this! E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No reference or OR issues, so good job there.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No issues here, although see below about the "fatalities" section".
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I spotted no weasel words, so nothing to really fix here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Besides the recent major expansion, there have been no disruptive edit wars in the past few weeks.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I'm afraid the second image (File:Emily_2005_path.png) is sandwiching text between it and
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See my below comments.

Comments

The lead states that Hurricane Emily was one of only two July Atlantic hurricanes to reach Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale. If Hurricane Emily was one, what was the other? Per WP:LEAD, it should give general information without making readers have to dig deeper. E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Emily mainly made landfall over Caribbean countries, shouldn't the date layout be D/M/Y instead of M/D/Y? I'm not sure which way it's usually formatted for hurricanes. E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, yea you're right, just finished!

In the "Eastern Caribbean and South America" section, St. Vincent and St. Lucia need wikilinked. E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12. Residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides should be shortened to one larger sentence, such as "Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12 and residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides." E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a section on the fatalities be made? Although not required, it would help readers skip straight there instead of having to comb through the entire article. E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence starting out the impact section, which reflects the information in the infobox. The fatalities are woven into the narrative, so I don't think an entire section is needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the second image (File:Emily_2005_path.png) is sandwiching text between it and the infobox, at least on a zoomed Edge browser. The image should either be moved down and to the right, or moved somewhere else in the article, although I'm not sure where it would fit best. E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out if the spacing issue is better. I added a clear after the table of contents, like we do for some season articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed to have fixed it. E_F⁵ 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article so far, it's in pretty good shape! E_F⁵ 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @EF5:, lemme know if I missed anything! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. E_F⁵ 18:38, 9 January 2025 (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.