Talk:Tropical Storm Erika (2009)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pretty good overall, but there are some things that need work. The most significant problems:

• Although it was a disorganized system, it was immediately declared a tropical storm. - As opposed to, what?

• Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Although the cyclone was well-organized, it lacked a defined low-level circulation center, leading to the NHC not issuing advisories on the system at that time. - This is a tad confusing, since it couldn't have been too well-organized it it didn't have a low-level center...

• Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• This led to the NHC immediately declaring the low a tropical storm and naming it Erika, the fifth named storm of the 2009 season. - Very poorly constructed sentence.

• Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• In post-storm analysis of these readings, it was determined that they had over estimated the wind speeds in an area of unusually heavy rains. - Who's "they"?

• Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the Preparations section can simply be sourced to the TCR rather than numerous advisories.

• Just directly sourcing to the original issuance of the watches/warnings Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but redundant or superfluous footnotes should be avoided whenever possible, and since the TCR already provides the same information in one centralized site, I think it would be better to cite that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)r

• The islands of Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy were placed under an orange alert and Guadeloupe was placed under a yellow alert. - What are orange and yellow alerts?

• Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• In Guadeloupe, heavy rainfall from Erika, peaking at 7.9 in (200 mm), leading to flooding in Côte-sous-le-Vent. - Grammar.

• Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overall the impact section makes use of passive voice far too often.

• I'm not sure how to do this correctly, but I gave it a shot. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On-hold for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Looking better. Just a couple more issues before I can pass it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)