Talk:Hurricane Jeanne (1980)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hurricane Jeanne (1980) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Finished article

I have finished this article. Please feel free to offer additions and solutions. Thanks! CVW (Talk) 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

The article is decent so far. Going through, here are some things that should be fixed before (practically B-class, but I'd like to see a bit more done).

• First sentence - it'd be great if there was a more interesting start to the article. Perhaps the record mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede. Or, for something generic, perhaps something like "Hurricane Jeanne was a moderate hurricane that intensified and dissipated in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall" (which is a rare event, as hinted by the NHC in its report on Henri in 1979).
• More Wikilinks are needed. Specifically, all dates should be linked for preference issues. However, as that might get a bit tedious, so if you can avoid any dates they should be removed. Specifically, all of the dates in the lede aren't terribly useful. Also, when linking places, the state should be linked as well, unless that state is implied.
• Rounding units - if the first unit is divisible by 5 or 10, it generally means it was rounded, so the converted figure should also be rounded. Also, a few units do not have a metric conversion.
• Sentence structure - there are some redundant sentences. For example, there isn't a need to mention that thousands were evacuated from oil rigs, then in the next clause clarify that at least 3,000 were evacuated. That could be combined to something like "At least 3,000 workers were removed from oil rigs." Try combining some other sentences for better flow.
• Word choice - there are a few minor examples of word awkwardness. For example, "Ships were surprised". Ships being caught off guard, or being unprepared for the ferocity of the storm, are possible solutions, as the current writing implies the ships themselves were actually surprised ;) Also, possessives should (IMO) probably not be used for storm names.
• Info - is there any more info? Ideally, is there any info about damage or flooding for Key West? One would think that the rainfall record would cause some damage, or was there not much printed in the newspapers? The HPC rainfall map would be a good addition for the impact section. The lede says that the hurricane caused beach erosion in Texas, but the article never sources that. This site mentions some coastal flooding. Also, it's probably not needed to mention that it was on the naming list in 1986 and 1992, but mentioning the 1998 storm and that it was retired in 2004 might be good additions.

All in all, it's a good article for such a minor storm. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• First sentence - it'd be great if there was a more interesting start to the article. Perhaps the record mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede. Or, for something generic, perhaps something like "Hurricane Jeanne was a moderate hurricane that intensified and dissipated in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall" (which is a rare event, as hinted by the NHC in its report on Henri in 1979). I added your sentence to the lede's start. I also added the interesting fact (with sources) to the impact section. "Jeanne was one of only four hurricanes in the 20th century that formed and dissipated in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall; the others were Laurie of 1969,[3] Henri of 1979,[12] and Alberto of 1982.[3]"
• More Wikilinks are needed. Specifically, all dates should be linked for preference issues. However, as that might get a bit tedious, so if you can avoid any dates they should be removed. Specifically, all of the dates in the lede aren't terribly useful. Also, when linking places, the state should be linked as well, unless that state is implied. The dates are linked. Check the page bottom.
• Rounding units - if the first unit is divisible by 5 or 10, it generally means it was rounded, so the converted figure should also be rounded. Also, a few units do not have a metric conversion. I fixed that issue.
• Sentence structure - there are some redundant sentences. For example, there isn't a need to mention that thousands were evacuated from oil rigs, then in the next clause clarify that at least 3,000 were evacuated. That could be combined to something like "At least 3,000 workers were removed from oil rigs." Try combining some other sentences for better flow. I fixed that issue. "3,000 workers evacuated their oil rigs because of Jeanne's high waves.[4][5]"
• Word choice - there are a few minor examples of word awkwardness. For example, "Ships were surprised". Ships being caught off guard, or being unprepared for the ferocity of the storm, are possible solutions, as the current writing implies the ships themselves were actually surprised ;) Also, possessives should (IMO) probably not be used for storm names. I fixed that issue. "Elsewhere, several ships were caught off guard by Jeanne's late arrival."
• Info - is there any more info? Ideally, is there any info about damage or flooding for Key West? One would think that the rainfall record would cause some damage, or was there not much printed in the newspapers? The HPC rainfall map would be a good addition for the impact section. The lede says that the hurricane caused beach erosion in Texas, but the article never sources that. This site mentions some coastal flooding. Also, it's probably not needed to mention that it was on the naming list in 1986 and 1992, but mentioning the 1998 storm and that it was retired in 2004 might be good additions. Well, I provided information on the flooding's impact in Key West. "Schools and most businesses were closed, while flights were grounded at Key West International Airport; authorities urged residents to stay home. Telephone and power services were cut to some areas of the city.[10]" Do you want further information?

Overall, thanks for the advice. Do you think the improvements are better? CVW (Talk) 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good enough for B-class. I'd love some more info on Florida impact (like dollar damage or houses damaged), but if that is not available then it's fine. There are still some unlinked dates in the Lede, which should either be removed or linked (the links for dates are needed as the link format will change for people's preferences). Some of the units should still be rounded (97 km in the first sentence of SH, 64 km/h). One last thing - the article says that Jeanne was one of four storms to form and dissipate in the Gulf of Mexico, but Jeanne formed in the western Caribbean Sea. That should be clarified. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed those issues. I linked the lede dates. I clarified that Jeanne attained hurricane status in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall. I rounded those conversions. Do you think the article meets the standards for GA status? Please feel free to offer additional recommendations. CVW (Talk) 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably good enough for a GA run. You could expand the Texas impact somewhat using this site. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the detail to the lede and Texas impact. You can nominate this article as a GA candidate. Thanks for your advice! CVW (Talk) 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can nom it if you want. You wrote it, after all. --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall, a very good, well-written article with excellent sourcing and images. There are some minor issues with wording in the Impact section, which I'll mention below.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Only a minor point here, the first paragraph in the Impact section is a bit technical. Is there a way to make the sentence discussing the mesoscale feature and inflow band more clear to readers without a background in the subject? (Perhaps by linking to the definitions, or providing short definitions of some terms elsewhere?). There's some alternate methods available at MOS - Definitions.

Concerns addressed. See below.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold, pending some very minor changes. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "band" portion of "inflow band" was linked to Tropical cyclone#physical structure. Additionally, I linked "mesoscale feature" to mesoscale meteorology. I think that works for GA status. CVW (Talk) 12:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good to me. Passing now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)