Talk:Tropical Storm Fay (2002)

Todo

It's pretty good so far, but there's a lot of organizational/grammar/spelling problems. For instance, declared is not spelled declaired. That's the main problem with the article. Good job overall. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it needs more impact, but is there anything else before GAN? Juliancolton (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox needs to be changed to match up with what's in the artircle. For example, it says peak winds were 50 mph, but the storm history says 60 mph. The dates need to match up better, as well. On September 11, Fay had dissipated into a tropical depression that continued to bring heavy rain to parts of Texas and Mexico - this is in the storm history, and doesn't make sense. It implies Fay remained a tropical storm until September 11th, but, even so, the phrase "dissipated into a tropical depression" is confusing. Did it dissipate, or did it weaken into a tropical depression? Wikilinking could be better (no need to link GoM twice). Overall grammar needs to be better, and there are several punctuation errors. The storm history could be expanded somewhat, as somethings are vague. Why was its movement so erratic? Why did it ultimately turn south into Mexico? What caused/prevented it to strength. Impact (such as rain and wind) should not be in the storm history. It'd be nice if the lede was two paragraphs. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Wikilinks. Quite a few are redirects. Also, some Mexican impact would really be nice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please clean up the units. There is no need to use the dollar sign, saying "dollars", and using USD, as in $3.5 million dollars (2002 USD). Also, shouldn't "4 1/2 feet" be 4.5 feet? All in all, though, it's not a bad article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done except for the Mexican damage which is very sparce. Juliancolton (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seek and ye shall find. There are plenty of sources from a proper Google search. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't think to look it up in spanish. Well, I will go through later and translate it and see what I can find. Juliancolton (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I got the translator to work, but I can't find anything in that soucre that says anything about Fay. Juliancolton (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The first source mentions Fay's impact in Mexico under the heading "Provocan lluvias caos en Tamaulipas y NL". The rest of the sources also should have info on Fay. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Better? Juliancolton (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A good article but the are problems that need to be dealt with regarding style

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This is where this article needs to be tidied. Non breaking spaces are needed through the article and the numbering needs to be consistent with WP:MOSNUM. The writing needs to be cleaned up and

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I would like to see additional references regarding storm history.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The preparations section needs expanding

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:

   In its current state the article would fail but i reckon in 7 days you can deal with these problems.Seddon69 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It has 10 SH refs. i don't know how many more it really needs, but, ok. Juliancolton (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I used every discussion on the storm for the refs. I don't think it's possible to have many more ;) Juliancolton (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't use the HPC advisories, or any TWO's. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? Juliancolton (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

Re-Write and Copy Edit

It looks like some parts of this article (including the lead) need a total rewrite, and others need copy edited. More info is needed as well, apparently from the GAR above. I'll get to it.TheNobleSith (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Mainly a few concerns with prose and with things that might not be totally clear.

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):

   Just one source I'm unclear on as well as some citations that need formatting.

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:

Comments

• Might want to update the conversion from 2002 to 2007 dollars or just drop it entirely. 2002 is close enough in time that I'm not sure a conversion is needed.
• Definitely some overlinking going on. No need to link September (when it is by itself), Texas (three times!), Louisiana, Mississippi, Mexico.
• Storm history section, I'd like to see a year mentioned with the phrase "In the first few days of September..."
• Same section, "Gradually, the trough and associated low pressure...". says pressure here, but previous sentence has low pressure systems. One or more than one?
• Same section "During a flight later that day, ..." this sentence reads awkwardly, especially the later part. Consider rewording to make the meaning a bit more clear.
• Shouldn't you link the first occurance of wind shear, not the third? (Storm history, second paragraph)
• Preparations section, this is the first mention of Tropical Depression Six. Is that what was before it was named?
• Impact section, second paragraph, the "Peak rainfall throughout the area were mostly..." something seems off with the grammar there. Shouldn't it be "Peak rainfalls" or "area was"?
• The Bevan ref is lacking publisher information (current ref 2) Same for Franklin Discussion No. 5 (current ref 9)
• The Franklin Discussion number 1 ref is lacking last access date (current ref 4)
• What makes http://www.hurricanecity.com/ a reliable source?
• Current ref 21 is lacking publisher and last access date. Might be nice if you put in a tag in the template to mention it is in Spanish also.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the problems. I will correct the rest later today. TheNobleSith (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Response

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Sure, I always like to improve and learn.

If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Mostly essays for school and such. I also write weather blogs on the wunderground.com .

Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

I'm a member of Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. I don't know if that counts.

TheNobleSith (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they all count :) Wunderground.com is a great resource. I don't see a NobleSith blog, which one is yours? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Fay (2002). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827114739/http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/floods/020909texas.html to http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/floods/020909texas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)