This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
It is unclear as to how much damage it caused. I see 3 values on the page, the one in the article part should be noted what year. I also see no reason for a 2005 USD in the infobox. Who cares about 2005 USD, the current year is 2010, and the storm occurred in 1983.
atomic773201:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm just wondering, it seems like a similar scenario
what I was talking about on the project page, where the actual tropical storm didn't do anything. This article only exists due to the remnant impact, and it seems that impact is rarely even called "Octave". In fact, aside from the MWR and the best track, only one of the refs connect Octave to the flooding, and the NWS actually says "Tropical storm remains...including those from Hurricane Octave" - which implies it might not have been solely Octave. IMO, the article should be moved to
October 1983 Arizona flooding -
a Google search shows that gets plenty of hits. It seems like a combination of storms, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to call it solely Octave.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe "Autumn" is more appropriate for seasons, but I think most of the flooding happened in October, so I'd opt for that instead of "Fall". --
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
But, as with the event not being entirely in United States (only primarily), the worst of the floods were in September. We're going for simplicity but accuracy. I agree with CB's suggestion.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Given how-known the event was as Octave, perhaps the article should be moved back? This is clearly a different case than Paul 00 or Noel 01, which were barely related to their events, and the historic topic isn't associated much with them. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"In Arizona, the highest rainfall associated with the event was 12.0 in (300 mm) at
Mount Graham." → Odd way to put the highest rainfall recorded. You should change this sentence to – "In Arizona, rainfall peaked at..."
"In Tucson, flood waters reached 8 ft (2.4 m)." → Two issues. First, there is the extra space between waters and reached. Second, 8 ft what? Inland? High? Low?
You say the word 'rainfall' three times within the first three sentences of the lead's second paragraph. Consider changing up your vocabulary a little bit. (Suggested words include, but are not limited to, rain event, precipitation, among others.)
"Moreover, five towns –
Clifton,
Duncan,
Winkelman,
Hayden, and
Marana – were all almost entirely flooded." → No need to say 'all' since you already said five towns and even listed them.
"In addition, 86 of the town's 126 business..." → You need to use the plural form of 'business', which would be 'businesses'.
"A total of 853 houses, mobile homes, and apartments were destroyed while 2,052 others were damaged." → You have a non-breaking space between '2,052' and 'others' but not '853' and 'houses'.
"Moreover, the months of August and September had been a very wet month for most of the southwest." → The two months at the beginning of the sentence fuse and become one month at the end of the sentence. Also, 'most of the southwest' of what? Mars?
"In fact, it had rained almost every other day at many weather stations in Arizona." → 'In fact' is not very encyclopedic. That's more reserved for news articles.
"The remnants of
a dying Pacific hurricane brought rain to much of California and part of Arizona." → Be more concise. Hurricanes don't 'die', they 'dissipate'.
"Then, on September 22, the
North American Monsoon took over the region." → Again, be more concise, and don't use alternative language which may unintentionally mask the true meaning of the context or may throw the reader completely off. Monsoons aren't oppressiveand expansive governments which take over land.
"However, in late September 1983, surface weather maps exhibited few unusual features." → You aren't portraying the real meaning of this sentence to the reader. "Few unusual features" leads the reader to believe that this month was a climatologically typical one.
"'Tropical Storm Octave played a vital role in the disaster by supplying warm...'" → Outside of the lead, there's no mention of what 'the disaster' is, or that it was a 'disaster' in the first place.
"Within six hours, Octave attained its peak intensity of45 mph (70 km/h)* and decreased in forward speed while turning to the northeast." → I would use the term 'slowed' instead of 'decreased'
"On September 30, Octave began to accelerate towards the northeast, as it began to weaken due to cooler waters and increasing vertical wind shear." → As far as I know, Octave did not accelerate because it was over cooler waters. As such, use the term 'and' in place of 'as it'.
"...the Tucson
National Weather Service office issued 20 warnings and statements including 13 were radar-generated updates." → 'Including 13 were' is a very strange word structure. You should remove 'were'.
"...much of the state of Arizona was deluged with 6 in (150 mm) in a mere 2 days in early October." → Two issues. First, 6 in of what? I know you mention what the accumulating substance is before, but you should mention it again. Also, 2 should be written out in word form.
"Throughout the state, excessive rainfall caused many rivers to overflow. Water was released from the Coolidge Dam, which forced 75 residents to evacuate." → You should link Coolidge Dam; most readers won't know where that is.
"This marked the third time in 50 years this had happened." → What's 'this' ? The people evacuating, or the dam release?
"After the rainfall ended, the
Santa Cruz, Rillito, and
Gila rivers experienced their highest
crests on record. A flow rate of25,000 cu ft (707,921,165 cc)* per second was measured in the Rillito Creek;" → You include Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Gila in a serial comma sequence that is identified as rivers, but then you say Rillito is a creek, not a river.
"...which was somewhat short of the record set during
Hurricane Heather during the
1977 Pacific hurricane season." → 'Somewhat' is a word reserved for when there are multiple quantities, with some meeting a set 'criteria' and some others not. In this case, this was one value, so it's better just to remove the word 'somewhat'.
"As Tropical Storm Octave deluged the state, the Rillito creek slowly eroded, and by October 2,..." → 'Creek' needs to be capitalized, and it has been before. Also, creeks themselves don't erode, I think you mean the creek eroded its banks, not itself. :P
"Runoff from both the Ritillo and Santa Cruz rivers eventually piled up in a delta, flooding Marana." → As far as I know, deltas are solely a feature at the mouth of a stream. Runoff does not just make 'deltas' in the middle of nowhere, and Marana is a far stretch inland from areas of the coast or the coast of a lake. Also, was all of Marana flooded or only portions of it?
"In Marana, many homes were submerged, forcing residents to be evacuated. Only two town residents had flood insurance because officials "didn't believe a flood could occur there"." → Just clarifying, but the lack of insurance was due to the fact that officials had indicated that a flood couldn't occur, yes?
"Tropical Storm Octave also caused major flooding along the Gila River (which reached its highest discharge rates since 1906)..." → The discharge rate factoid is pretty important, so I'm not sure why you have it in parentheses when it can be a separate clause all together.
"Along the Southern Fransisco River, a peak discharge rate of 56,000 cu ft (1.6×109 cc),..." → A peak discharge rate did what? You leave an incomplete clause because you don't have anything after the value.
"residents armed with shovels and sandbags fought rising floodwaters after the Hooker Dam, an
earthen dam 35 mi (55 km)* north of Willcox, burst, preventing further destruction." → What did the residents do with the shovels? Since you use the term 'fought' I get the wrong impression that the residents are just hacking at the flood waters with shovels, which sounds stupid and untrue.
"The
Mohave and
Yavapai counties were particularly hard-hit. A relief helicopter crashed in attempt to rescue a woman and her baby, killing its two crew members." → So what happened to the woman and her baby?
"One underpass was filled with 9 ft (2.7 m) deep water." → This sentence makes it look like 'deep water' is a different substance than just regular water. You should say, instead, that 'One underpass was filled with water 9 ft (2.7 m) deep.'
"The 28 mile (45 km) long Santa Fe Railway 'Prescott Branch' that served the city of
Prescott..." → Is the Santa Fe Railway called Prescott Branch, or is the branch some sort of "tributary" of the main railway?
"...and downtown Prescott due to floodwaters." → You say 'flood water' earlier in the article but then you combine the two words here. Use consistent spelling.
"Extensive damage was reported throughout the state." → I don't get why this sentence is in the seventh paragraph in the impact section when it really should be in the first.
"Muhc of the rich tospoil crop was washed downstream into large reservoirs." → Very 'muhc'
"Furthermore, agriculture damage totaled about $97.5 million." → Since 'agriculture', a noun, is being defined to be an adjective to 'damage', use the adjective form, 'agricultural'.
"A father, mother, and two children were swept off their truck in
Ash Fork. Two navy officers where killed on September 30 near
Ostman when their jet crashed. On October 1, a man drowned in the Santa Cruz river. Another person drowned in a wash near Tuscon when his truck stalled. In addition, a taxi driver and a passenger died when tried to cross a flooded river." → I don't get why this information is all the way down here in a paragraph listing overall statistics. They should be distributed to other paragraphs.
"Overall, infrastructural damage in the Tuscon area ranged from $54-100 million;..." → You should make note that it was the estimates that ranged, not the damage that ranged. Also, use an endash ( – ), not a hyphen ( - ).
Stop being so god darn picky. No, just no. Your statandrs are too high, I'm sorry. 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"The system is considered the worst flooding event in Pima county history." → Capitalize 'Pima'.
"It is also regraded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona." → Two issues, first, cyclones don't get 'graded'. Also, for such a large recognition, I don't get why this factoid is dumped off with 'also'. You should just say, 'It was regarded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona' and put it before Norma and Storm of the Century information.
"Elsewhere, in
New Mexico, a peak total of 5.42 in (138 mm) was recorded." → First off it's odd to start off a section with the exact same word as the section title. Better just remove 'elsewhere'. Also, 5.42 in of what?
"Damage to four flooded counties in southwest New Mexico was estimated at $12.5 million including $6.5 million worth of damage from levees and dikes." → Two issues. First, add a comma after the first 'million'. Secondly, it's damage to levees and dikes, these tools of our society don't give damage.
"Many workers from dozens of companies used cranes, dynamite, trucks and hammers to clean up dried 7 ft (2.1 m) mud near some rivers." → I'm sure that it wasn't 7 ft at every river. Also, it's strange how you call it "7 ft mud", like it's some new form of mud. Like I said earlier with the deep water case, you should indicate that the mud was 7 ft deep, not that it was 7 ft.
Has MoS complience; also checked the words to watch page, and this article meets that guideline. I wasn't very thorough in this search, however. They will be covered in the above criterion, probably. However, the lead doesn't make any mention of impacts in Mexico or California. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)
References have consistent format, and the two-column reference section limits it from becoming too excessive. However, I find it odd that reference #4 does not have a URL. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Article is thoroughly referenced. However, when you say "Ever since Octave, most of southern Arizona has been a drought..." the reference following that (#8), does not even have the word drought in it. The same reference also spells 'Arizona' as 'Ariozna'. Also, the case I state below is also an issue. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm very concerned for the reliability of the costliest Pacific hurricanes template, as it has no sources. The page it links to has a similar template, but with missing references which would be called original research. Also, I notice that these numbers are inflation-adjusted and wealth normalized, and these adjusted numbers do not appear in their respective storm articles. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
Do I need to reply to this? I don't wanna spam the fricking article with refrences. And no, it is not welath normalized. And yes, they are in their articles, just not in the infobox. This is
WP:CALC and we use a template to fix the data.
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit concerned that there isn't more information in Mexico. Also, you mention, in the preparations section, that "Despite the lack of EBS broadcasts, NOAA Weather Radio did the best it could to provide updated information on Octave." This is a quite opinionated sentence that does not need to be in this article. If you can replace it with a quote, however, then this will be resolved. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Do I even need to reply to the first. It is a minor issue (the second), that I took care of. Does that warrant a fail. No, no, no. That warrants a .
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
All images are relevant to the topic. However, for the image of rainfall totals, capitalize 'Southwest', since it is a term for a specific, defined area of the United States. Otherwise, use 'southwestern'. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Unfortunately, the article has several jarring issues that need to be fixed, and as such it falls short on WIAGA. Please be reminded, that the rationale for failing as stated by
WP:GAN/i is that the reviewer has felt that the article falls short of such criteria, and the rationale for 'on hold' is that there are few issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this article. Feel free to nominate the article again once you have fixed the aforementioned issues. Thanks. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
No, this article is fine. It had a few issues. Many of these were ridiculous, sorry TAM. These were all MINOR, what harm is there in leaving this thingy on hold? Obviously, I am extremly annoyed at this review and the failure. I work my tail off on the article, and this is what I get in return. I hope you refrain from doing this in the future, that is all I have to say TAM. I am sorry for the borderline civilty comments in this review, I just am out of anger for many reasons.
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Guess I will be doing my first GA review. There shouldn't be much to fix, since most are fixed from the first GA review. Expect the review to start soon.—
CycloneIsaac–
E-Mail21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
It is unclear as to how much damage it caused. I see 3 values on the page, the one in the article part should be noted what year. I also see no reason for a 2005 USD in the infobox. Who cares about 2005 USD, the current year is 2010, and the storm occurred in 1983.
atomic773201:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm just wondering, it seems like a similar scenario
what I was talking about on the project page, where the actual tropical storm didn't do anything. This article only exists due to the remnant impact, and it seems that impact is rarely even called "Octave". In fact, aside from the MWR and the best track, only one of the refs connect Octave to the flooding, and the NWS actually says "Tropical storm remains...including those from Hurricane Octave" - which implies it might not have been solely Octave. IMO, the article should be moved to
October 1983 Arizona flooding -
a Google search shows that gets plenty of hits. It seems like a combination of storms, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to call it solely Octave.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe "Autumn" is more appropriate for seasons, but I think most of the flooding happened in October, so I'd opt for that instead of "Fall". --
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
But, as with the event not being entirely in United States (only primarily), the worst of the floods were in September. We're going for simplicity but accuracy. I agree with CB's suggestion.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Given how-known the event was as Octave, perhaps the article should be moved back? This is clearly a different case than Paul 00 or Noel 01, which were barely related to their events, and the historic topic isn't associated much with them. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"In Arizona, the highest rainfall associated with the event was 12.0 in (300 mm) at
Mount Graham." → Odd way to put the highest rainfall recorded. You should change this sentence to – "In Arizona, rainfall peaked at..."
"In Tucson, flood waters reached 8 ft (2.4 m)." → Two issues. First, there is the extra space between waters and reached. Second, 8 ft what? Inland? High? Low?
You say the word 'rainfall' three times within the first three sentences of the lead's second paragraph. Consider changing up your vocabulary a little bit. (Suggested words include, but are not limited to, rain event, precipitation, among others.)
"Moreover, five towns –
Clifton,
Duncan,
Winkelman,
Hayden, and
Marana – were all almost entirely flooded." → No need to say 'all' since you already said five towns and even listed them.
"In addition, 86 of the town's 126 business..." → You need to use the plural form of 'business', which would be 'businesses'.
"A total of 853 houses, mobile homes, and apartments were destroyed while 2,052 others were damaged." → You have a non-breaking space between '2,052' and 'others' but not '853' and 'houses'.
"Moreover, the months of August and September had been a very wet month for most of the southwest." → The two months at the beginning of the sentence fuse and become one month at the end of the sentence. Also, 'most of the southwest' of what? Mars?
"In fact, it had rained almost every other day at many weather stations in Arizona." → 'In fact' is not very encyclopedic. That's more reserved for news articles.
"The remnants of
a dying Pacific hurricane brought rain to much of California and part of Arizona." → Be more concise. Hurricanes don't 'die', they 'dissipate'.
"Then, on September 22, the
North American Monsoon took over the region." → Again, be more concise, and don't use alternative language which may unintentionally mask the true meaning of the context or may throw the reader completely off. Monsoons aren't oppressiveand expansive governments which take over land.
"However, in late September 1983, surface weather maps exhibited few unusual features." → You aren't portraying the real meaning of this sentence to the reader. "Few unusual features" leads the reader to believe that this month was a climatologically typical one.
"'Tropical Storm Octave played a vital role in the disaster by supplying warm...'" → Outside of the lead, there's no mention of what 'the disaster' is, or that it was a 'disaster' in the first place.
"Within six hours, Octave attained its peak intensity of45 mph (70 km/h)* and decreased in forward speed while turning to the northeast." → I would use the term 'slowed' instead of 'decreased'
"On September 30, Octave began to accelerate towards the northeast, as it began to weaken due to cooler waters and increasing vertical wind shear." → As far as I know, Octave did not accelerate because it was over cooler waters. As such, use the term 'and' in place of 'as it'.
"...the Tucson
National Weather Service office issued 20 warnings and statements including 13 were radar-generated updates." → 'Including 13 were' is a very strange word structure. You should remove 'were'.
"...much of the state of Arizona was deluged with 6 in (150 mm) in a mere 2 days in early October." → Two issues. First, 6 in of what? I know you mention what the accumulating substance is before, but you should mention it again. Also, 2 should be written out in word form.
"Throughout the state, excessive rainfall caused many rivers to overflow. Water was released from the Coolidge Dam, which forced 75 residents to evacuate." → You should link Coolidge Dam; most readers won't know where that is.
"This marked the third time in 50 years this had happened." → What's 'this' ? The people evacuating, or the dam release?
"After the rainfall ended, the
Santa Cruz, Rillito, and
Gila rivers experienced their highest
crests on record. A flow rate of25,000 cu ft (707,921,165 cc)* per second was measured in the Rillito Creek;" → You include Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Gila in a serial comma sequence that is identified as rivers, but then you say Rillito is a creek, not a river.
"...which was somewhat short of the record set during
Hurricane Heather during the
1977 Pacific hurricane season." → 'Somewhat' is a word reserved for when there are multiple quantities, with some meeting a set 'criteria' and some others not. In this case, this was one value, so it's better just to remove the word 'somewhat'.
"As Tropical Storm Octave deluged the state, the Rillito creek slowly eroded, and by October 2,..." → 'Creek' needs to be capitalized, and it has been before. Also, creeks themselves don't erode, I think you mean the creek eroded its banks, not itself. :P
"Runoff from both the Ritillo and Santa Cruz rivers eventually piled up in a delta, flooding Marana." → As far as I know, deltas are solely a feature at the mouth of a stream. Runoff does not just make 'deltas' in the middle of nowhere, and Marana is a far stretch inland from areas of the coast or the coast of a lake. Also, was all of Marana flooded or only portions of it?
"In Marana, many homes were submerged, forcing residents to be evacuated. Only two town residents had flood insurance because officials "didn't believe a flood could occur there"." → Just clarifying, but the lack of insurance was due to the fact that officials had indicated that a flood couldn't occur, yes?
"Tropical Storm Octave also caused major flooding along the Gila River (which reached its highest discharge rates since 1906)..." → The discharge rate factoid is pretty important, so I'm not sure why you have it in parentheses when it can be a separate clause all together.
"Along the Southern Fransisco River, a peak discharge rate of 56,000 cu ft (1.6×109 cc),..." → A peak discharge rate did what? You leave an incomplete clause because you don't have anything after the value.
"residents armed with shovels and sandbags fought rising floodwaters after the Hooker Dam, an
earthen dam 35 mi (55 km)* north of Willcox, burst, preventing further destruction." → What did the residents do with the shovels? Since you use the term 'fought' I get the wrong impression that the residents are just hacking at the flood waters with shovels, which sounds stupid and untrue.
"The
Mohave and
Yavapai counties were particularly hard-hit. A relief helicopter crashed in attempt to rescue a woman and her baby, killing its two crew members." → So what happened to the woman and her baby?
"One underpass was filled with 9 ft (2.7 m) deep water." → This sentence makes it look like 'deep water' is a different substance than just regular water. You should say, instead, that 'One underpass was filled with water 9 ft (2.7 m) deep.'
"The 28 mile (45 km) long Santa Fe Railway 'Prescott Branch' that served the city of
Prescott..." → Is the Santa Fe Railway called Prescott Branch, or is the branch some sort of "tributary" of the main railway?
"...and downtown Prescott due to floodwaters." → You say 'flood water' earlier in the article but then you combine the two words here. Use consistent spelling.
"Extensive damage was reported throughout the state." → I don't get why this sentence is in the seventh paragraph in the impact section when it really should be in the first.
"Muhc of the rich tospoil crop was washed downstream into large reservoirs." → Very 'muhc'
"Furthermore, agriculture damage totaled about $97.5 million." → Since 'agriculture', a noun, is being defined to be an adjective to 'damage', use the adjective form, 'agricultural'.
"A father, mother, and two children were swept off their truck in
Ash Fork. Two navy officers where killed on September 30 near
Ostman when their jet crashed. On October 1, a man drowned in the Santa Cruz river. Another person drowned in a wash near Tuscon when his truck stalled. In addition, a taxi driver and a passenger died when tried to cross a flooded river." → I don't get why this information is all the way down here in a paragraph listing overall statistics. They should be distributed to other paragraphs.
"Overall, infrastructural damage in the Tuscon area ranged from $54-100 million;..." → You should make note that it was the estimates that ranged, not the damage that ranged. Also, use an endash ( – ), not a hyphen ( - ).
Stop being so god darn picky. No, just no. Your statandrs are too high, I'm sorry. 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"The system is considered the worst flooding event in Pima county history." → Capitalize 'Pima'.
"It is also regraded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona." → Two issues, first, cyclones don't get 'graded'. Also, for such a large recognition, I don't get why this factoid is dumped off with 'also'. You should just say, 'It was regarded as the worst tropical system to affect Arizona' and put it before Norma and Storm of the Century information.
"Elsewhere, in
New Mexico, a peak total of 5.42 in (138 mm) was recorded." → First off it's odd to start off a section with the exact same word as the section title. Better just remove 'elsewhere'. Also, 5.42 in of what?
"Damage to four flooded counties in southwest New Mexico was estimated at $12.5 million including $6.5 million worth of damage from levees and dikes." → Two issues. First, add a comma after the first 'million'. Secondly, it's damage to levees and dikes, these tools of our society don't give damage.
"Many workers from dozens of companies used cranes, dynamite, trucks and hammers to clean up dried 7 ft (2.1 m) mud near some rivers." → I'm sure that it wasn't 7 ft at every river. Also, it's strange how you call it "7 ft mud", like it's some new form of mud. Like I said earlier with the deep water case, you should indicate that the mud was 7 ft deep, not that it was 7 ft.
Has MoS complience; also checked the words to watch page, and this article meets that guideline. I wasn't very thorough in this search, however. They will be covered in the above criterion, probably. However, the lead doesn't make any mention of impacts in Mexico or California. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)
References have consistent format, and the two-column reference section limits it from becoming too excessive. However, I find it odd that reference #4 does not have a URL. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Article is thoroughly referenced. However, when you say "Ever since Octave, most of southern Arizona has been a drought..." the reference following that (#8), does not even have the word drought in it. The same reference also spells 'Arizona' as 'Ariozna'. Also, the case I state below is also an issue. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm very concerned for the reliability of the costliest Pacific hurricanes template, as it has no sources. The page it links to has a similar template, but with missing references which would be called original research. Also, I notice that these numbers are inflation-adjusted and wealth normalized, and these adjusted numbers do not appear in their respective storm articles. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
Do I need to reply to this? I don't wanna spam the fricking article with refrences. And no, it is not welath normalized. And yes, they are in their articles, just not in the infobox. This is
WP:CALC and we use a template to fix the data.
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit concerned that there isn't more information in Mexico. Also, you mention, in the preparations section, that "Despite the lack of EBS broadcasts, NOAA Weather Radio did the best it could to provide updated information on Octave." This is a quite opinionated sentence that does not need to be in this article. If you can replace it with a quote, however, then this will be resolved. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Do I even need to reply to the first. It is a minor issue (the second), that I took care of. Does that warrant a fail. No, no, no. That warrants a .
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
All images are relevant to the topic. However, for the image of rainfall totals, capitalize 'Southwest', since it is a term for a specific, defined area of the United States. Otherwise, use 'southwestern'. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Unfortunately, the article has several jarring issues that need to be fixed, and as such it falls short on WIAGA. Please be reminded, that the rationale for failing as stated by
WP:GAN/i is that the reviewer has felt that the article falls short of such criteria, and the rationale for 'on hold' is that there are few issues. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this article. Feel free to nominate the article again once you have fixed the aforementioned issues. Thanks. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works)19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
No, this article is fine. It had a few issues. Many of these were ridiculous, sorry TAM. These were all MINOR, what harm is there in leaving this thingy on hold? Obviously, I am extremly annoyed at this review and the failure. I work my tail off on the article, and this is what I get in return. I hope you refrain from doing this in the future, that is all I have to say TAM. I am sorry for the borderline civilty comments in this review, I just am out of anger for many reasons.
YEPacificHurricane04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Guess I will be doing my first GA review. There shouldn't be much to fix, since most are fixed from the first GA review. Expect the review to start soon.—
CycloneIsaac–
E-Mail21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)