Talk:1906 Florida Keys hurricane/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't really taken a deep look at the article, so I figure I'd review it.
- I think the first sentence could be better. Of course the 1906 Florida Keys hurricane was in 1906.
- I think the second sentence is ambiguous when it mentions Barbados. Origins can mean several things. I first thought of where the storm first formed as a tropical cyclone with the current wording.
- "The system continued to travel toward Cuba, making landfall there, and then made a third landfall in the Florida Keys. " - try to avoid landfall twice in the same sentence. Also, "continued to travel toward Cuba" is false, since it implies that it was moving toward Cuba at some point. However, earlier in the lede you only mention it striking Central America, which is not on the way to Cuba.
- I gotta say, I like how you do the damage and deaths in the lede, nice!
- "The system that would eventually become the hurricane was first detected on October 4" - that's sort of awkward, saying "the system that would become the hurricane". It makes sense when a storm is named and you do that, but I don't think it works well. Perhaps something like "The hurricane originated from a "cyclone perturbation" near Barbados on October 4", or something like that.
- "The system was recognized as a tropical storm early on October 8, with winds of 40 mph (65 km/h),[9] while near Grand Cayman." - the storm most definitely did not form near Grand Cayman, which is located near Cuba. Try finding a better location
- Fixed, hate those sources. HurricaneFan25 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- "By October 9, air pressures had fallen to 1006 mbar (hPa; 29.72 inHg) in Colón, while air pressures at Bluefields, Nicaragua had fallen to 1001 mbar (hPa; 29.57 inHg)." - what does this have to do with the storm?
- "As the system continued to move south" - you never once mention a southward movement, and it doesn't look that way in the track map
- "and as the storm began to curve toward the south-southwest" - same as above. Are you sure you have your directions right?
- "A large wave measuring 15 feet (4.6 m) caused by the storm was described off Nicaragua, and caused brief disappearances of the Seal Cays." - that seems like impact. How come that's in the MH?
- " The system was present near the Windward Islands on October 11,[6] and was south of Barbados on October 12" - the storm was nowhere near those locations on those dates.
- You never mention it making landfall in Nicaragua. That's pretty crucial.
- "The hurricane weakened overland to a tropical storm, but restrengthened to a strong Category 1 hurricane on October 13, stationed near Belize" - first, when did it weaken to a TS? Second, how did its track go after hitting Nicaragua? Third, it implies that it became a hurricane over Belize. It's pretty key that it moved over the Gulf of Honduras/western Caribbean. That's how it became a hurricane again
- You completely skip it becoming a hurricane, hitting Belize, weakening to a TS, and restrengthening to a hurricane
- Already added now. HurricaneFan25 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "By then, it was be noted that the storm was near Cuba by then, when a report was issued via a telegraph from Havana" - that sentence is all-around pretty poor, I'm sorry. When you're writing the MH, you have to focus on what the storm actually did, not on who reported on what the storm did when and where.
- "The hurricane's center passed east of Havana during the evening of October 17, with a pressure recorded of 977 mbar (hPa; 28.86 inHg)." - how strong were the winds? And when did it hit Cuba proper? Havana is on the north coast. It can't have struck Havana based on its trajectory (and you failed to mention its northeast turn as well)
- "The following morning, the hurricane near Key West, where a barometric pressure of 992 mbar (hPa; 29.30 inHg) was measured." - again, missing the windspeed. The pressure isn't that helpful in an encyclopediac article, since people don't know what that is as well. They can relate to what the winds are, however. Also, you're missing a verb in the second clause
- You completely fail to mention the storm moving over southern Florida
- Done, added. HurricaneFan25 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The end portion of the MH should be given more detail, how it curved southwestward, where it struck Florida again, and where it dissipated.
- Done, I hope correctly. HurricaneFan25 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Throughout western Nicaragua, widespread flooding was recorded, damaging roads and disrupting the construction of a port in Corinto" - watch out with the passive voice there. Its current meaning indicates that western Nicaragua damaged roads and disrupted the port.
- "Several landslides occurred, moving away hills." - the hills got up and moved away? :P
- And they ran away! Fixed. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it'd be better if the Nicaragua section was organized more geographically. For example, the coastal impact first, then the interior impact.
- Think you mentioned that above, and fixed? HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You mention Costa Rica in the impact table, but you don't mention it in prose
- Corrected. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Any impact in Honduras, Belize, Guatemala, Mexico?
- None, strange. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Havana sustained major damage, with fifty houses destroyed,[13] and cable operators in Miami, Santiago, and Jamaica were unable to contact Havana." - try avoiding saying the city's name twice. Also, it'd be helpful to mention the hurricane somewhere in there.
- "The wall of a legation of the United States was blown down, and Vedado's sea baths were severely damaged" - that seems like an odd juxtaposition. One deals with a government agency (and btw, you should link legation, I didn't know what it was), and the other deals with... sea baths?
- Yep.
Fixed. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yep.
- In the third sentence, you mention Havana again. As with Nicaragua, try and have consistency where you mention certain information. Having a geographic order usually works well.
- "In San Luis, tobacco crops were ruined by the storm.[5] In addition, another 150 tobacco barns in the Alquízar municipality were destroyed." - can't you find a way to merge those sentences? They basically cover the same information.
- Changed a bit. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Many parks were destroyed in the city, with trees blown down." - that seems odd, given that a park is just a designated area. It'd be like saying a city was destroyed, which, aside from a meteor or a nuclear bomb, is unlikely to happen in a natural disaster.
- As with Costa Rica, you give a Cuban damage total, but don't say it anywhere or cite it (aside from the bottom, but it should be in prose).
- "In Miami, over 100 houses had been destroyed" - why the sudden switch in verb usage? The rest of the article used basic past or simple passive voice tense, but this introduces the unnecessary "had been destroyed" format.
- "In Fort Pierce, the Peninsula and Occidental railcar sheds collapsed, with the roof blown away" - only one roof was blown away?
- "Following the seeding, the project was cancelled and numerous lawsuits were filed" - you should emphasize that the lawsuits were filed due to the hurricane's change in movement.
- Reworded, hopefully it's better. HurricaneFan25 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
All in all, I feel there is a lot to do. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail the GAN. I suggest you look over your other GAN and see if that has any similar errors as this one. Feel free to let me know when you've addressed all of this. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)