Talk:Tropical Storm Dottie/GA1

GA Review

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

I chose a relatively small page so I can perform a thorough analysis but still work on my GA reviewing. I will try to be thorough without too hard. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1: well-written

Lead

1st sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd sentence needs to have the comma removed. The comma creates a pause which separates two items that logically should not be separated. I am unsure about the use of the phrase "The precursor to Dottie", but I will AGF that this is common practice on such articles done for mechanical accuracy instead of aesthetics. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3rd sentence needs a comma after the "and". The phrase "and after peaking as a moderate tropical storm, it accelerated northeastward" should really be "and it accelerated northeastward" with a paranthetical statement which denotes the relative place of the event compared to the rest of the events. As of now, the clause reads "and after peaking as a moderate tropical storm" with the comma separating off a secondary statement that would be read as less important. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4th sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5th sentence needs the comma to be removed before the "and" as per explained in the comment to the 2nd sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6th sentence checks out with no problems and a strong use of semi-colon. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

1st sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd sentence is fine but the use of the comma could go either way. The comma followed by a semi-colon would introduces two pauses into the reading, which would give a poor aesthetic feel. However, it is mechanically fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3rd sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4th, 5th, and 6th sentences checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7th sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8th sentence should drop the "instead" of "but instead it". The "instead" is unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9th sentence should drop the comma before the "and" per the response to the 2nd sentence in the lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10th sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11th sentence should drop the comma before the "and" per the response to the 2nd sentence in the lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12th sentence should be clarified to explain that "The remnant low" means a "low pressure system". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact

1st sentence needs to be fixed as it has two parenthetical statements that modify the sentence that follows: "On August 19, in response to the storm,". They are competing for primacy and sound awkward, as the first actually modifies the second modifier instead of both modifying the main clause. Suggestion: "In response to the storm, gale warnings were issued on August 19". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3rd sentence checks out with no problems (commas are more acceptable before a "but" in a non-compound sentence than they are before an "and" in a non-compound sentence). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4th sentence needs to place a comma after the "though" in "though in contrast". See the response to the 3rd sentence of the lead for an explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5th sentence through 13th sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14th sentence should drop the comma before the "and" per the response to the 2nd sentence in the lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15h sentence checks out with no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

All items are attributed to sources and seem to be verified in the sources. I have not seen anything that looks problematic as I skimmed through for the necessary information. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

There are multiple news sources. The National Hurricane Center is trustworthy. There are secondary sources to 4 local newspapers. There might be other sources added, but it seems appropriate enough for GA. The page is small at only 7.5k, but it is thorough, covers the main points, and relies on multiple sources. It passes the GA standards on this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4: neutral

There is little possibility for bias in the subject matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5: stable

The page appears to be stable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

The page has three images and fits this requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]