Talk:Hurricane Hilary/GA1

GA Review

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) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted and have been noticing the nominator's work on it; looking forward to reviewing, which I should be able to begin within the next few days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dylan620 (talk · contribs), looking forward to the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Prose: This article is (predictably, given your track record) well-written overall, I have no concerns with neutrality, and it's certainly comprehensive enough for GA, but there are some kinks that I think should be worked out. Prose review on hold: see concerns below.
  • Two paragraphs in the lede start the exact same way (In Mexico, the hurricane...)

• I added more for the preparations for variety. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • The origins of Hilary was – either 'origin' or 'were'

• Fix, I mean fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • By the time of its peak, Hilary commenced a 48 hour period of intensification following its development. – the phrasing here seems to imply that Hilary continued to intensify after it peaked in intensity. Maybe something like "by the time of its peak, Hilary had been rapidly intensifying for a continuous 48-hour period following its formation"?

• Yea I like that wording. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • The combined system, which included the remnants of Hilary continued moving through the western United States, eventually crossing into Canada. – this is a little clunky. I'd add a comma after 'Hilary', replace the one after 'States' with an 'and', and replace 'crossing' with 'crossed'.

• Unclunked hopefully. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • The first issued a flood watch on August 17 – the first what?

• Reworded, it was NWS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • by President Joe Biden, and Biden urged – 'and Biden' -> 'who'

• Ah yea, I wasn't thinking there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Local states of emergency were declared in Los Angeles, Palm Springs, and in Indio – I don't think the second 'in' is necessary.

• You're lucky I didn't have another "in" before "in in Indio" XD. Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • The phrase strong enough to knock down a few trees appears twice a couple sentences apart.

• Changed the second one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • beneficial with helping extinguish -> "beneficial, helping to extinguish"

• Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • I think it may be worth mentioning that Hilary was operationally assessed to have peaked with 145 mph winds, especially since it's mentioned in multiple sources.

• Added, plus added the bit of NHC anticipating some slight further strengthening. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sources: I checked over 40 sources (refs 1, 3, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44, 50, 51, 56, 62, 67, 71, 75, 81, 88, 89, 94, 102, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 136, 143, 148, and 149; numbers are from this revision). I'm overall not too worried about the veracity of the information here, but there are some inconsistencies that I would like to be addressed. Source review on hold: see concerns below.
  • Refs 24 and 88 (and any other Spanish-language refs) should have |lang=es added as parameters.

• Got these, plus ref 26. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Refs 29 and 94 are dead links. I might try running IABot after I hit 'publish'; hopefully that would resolve this issue.

• I will need to find other sources for this, which I'll work on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Ref 35: Given the size of the cited document, inserting page numbers after each citation (perhaps by using {{rp}}) would be helpful here.

• It doesn't really have page numbers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: I was going by the PDF reader, which says that there are 29 pages – doesn't that count for page numbers? Historically in this sort of situation I've used PDF page numbers by default unless overriden by explicitly stated numbers on the pages themselves. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• OK, I added the page numbers based on what page it was in order. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Thanks mate – I think we're good to go. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Refs 115 and 149 should have |url-access=limited added as parameters, since the sites hosting those sources allow visitors to access only a certain amount of content before requiring payment.

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• • Ref 130 seems to contradict refs 128 and 129; was it a microburst that hit the Fresno area, or was it a tornado?

• It was a microburst, not a tornado. It was initially reported as a tornado, and the initial reports included some damage information that was relevant, even if they got the tornado part wrong. I emailed the NWS to confirm that it was indeed a microburst, which is backed up by NCDC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Images: All images present are appropriately licensed for either public domain (with several of those being from the US government) or Creative Commons, and contribute encyclopedic value to the article. No concerns with image sourcing. I would like for alt text to be added, but as that would be getting into FAC territory, I will not factor it into this review. Image review passes.
• Stability: Until I removed a single parenthesis within the past couple hours, there had been no edits to the article since April 26. Stability review passes.
• Copyright: Earwig returns are based on phrases for which there is little room for creative expression, and I could not detect any issues on my own. Copyright review passes.

This is very close to meeting the GA criteria, but needs just a smidgen more work to reach that mark. Putting on hold for now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dylan. The only thing I need to get to is finding alternative sources for refs 29 and 94, which I'll get to later today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, as IABot fortunately did find working archives for those refs. I just need something to be clarified further up before I pass the article. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, with the latest changes, I am happy to pass this article. Excellent work again, HH. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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.