Talk:Hurricane Andrew/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have a full review up by the end of the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I made quite a few copyedits; please check to make sure I didn't inadvertently change any meaning/nuance.
   • Impact, Bahamas - "many wealthy homes sustained heavy damage." Homes cannot be wealthy, only the people owning them can be.
   • Impact, Florida - " tides reached as high as 16.9 feet (5.2 m)." How high above normal was this?
   • Impact, Florida, "Following the storm, more than 1.4 million people lost electricity and another 150,000 were without telephone service." Did they lose power/phone following or during the storm? Obviously it was still out after, but when did it actually happen?
   • Impact, Florida, "Slightly more than a year later, approximately 20 million cubic yards of debris left by the storm were disposed of." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say/emphasize. The length of time it took? The amount of debris?

   • This sentence is awkward and so should probably be rewritten. It's also confusing. Why did it take a year to dispose of these debris? Why weren't they disposed of over the year? How did they dispose of this many debris all at once? If they were disposed of all at once, were more debris disposed of during the year? If what you're trying to focus on is the amount of debris, does the time frame even matter?

   • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Impact, Florida, "while 29 were indirectly caused by the storm." What were the indirect affects? If you're going to elaborate for the Bahamas, you should elaborate for Florida.
   • In the lead, it says that 182 million fish were killed in the Everglades, but the only mention of fish I can find in the body of the article is in the Impact, Louisiana section, where it says that 189 million fish were killed in the Atchafalaya Basin and Bayou Lafourche.

   • Why is the information now in the lead twice?

   Now I fixed it--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Impact, Remainder of US - Third paragraphs starts with "In Alabama...", but then the third sentence starts "In neighboring Alabama..." which makes me wonder if one of the state names is wrong.
   • Aftermath, "the state will face a substantial clean bill" - Is this quote correct? It's not grammatical.

   • Oops, I misquoted Governor Chiles. It was actually "the state will face a substantial cleanup bill" --12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Aftermath, "President Bush remarked, "[it] hasn't been as devastating [as in Florida]"," This isn't grammatical, and since you've obviously had to change parts of the quote anyway, why not just remove the quote altogether and say something like "President Bush remarked that the area was not as devastated as Florida."

   • Came up with something different, but you probably won't have a problem with it.--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref #39 (Grant Goodge) is a dead link.
   • Ref #50 ("Major Disaster Declared August 24, 1992 (DR-955)") is a dead link.
   • Ref #63 ( Louisiana Hurricane Andrew) is a dead link.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • File:HurricaneAndrew.jpg is lacking source information and I don't understand what the description has to do with the image.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• So far, I have fixed all of your queries about this article. Thanks you the review, by the way.--12george1 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have fixed everything except for bulletins number 5 and 6. You are correct with your former theory of the 20 million cubic yards of debris; it was present the amount of debris left from the storm. Now for number 6, there are no sources with a breakdown of the death toll in Florida, unlike in The Bahamas. Therefore, I cannot elaborate.--12george1 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• More comments added above. I've struck the issues that have been addressed, and replied to the others. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick responses! Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)