Talk:Hurricane Ernesto (2006)/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are many cases of over-linking, especially with the names of counties, countries, and states.
- In the first paragraph of the lead, between the last two sentences, it probably should be noted that Ernesto became extratropical on September 1. The reason being is that you note that Ernesto made landfall on August 31, and the remnants were dissipated on September 14. This leaves the reader to guess or read the meteorological history to find out which day Ernesto became extratropical. In addition, I read through the MH and found out that this is an error; the remnants did not dissipate on September 14, it was September 4.
- "Damage in Virginia was estimated to have been $118 million (2006 USD)," - What in particular is special about the damage in Virgina, was it because it was where the most damage was done?
- Add an inflation templates to the aforementioned money value, as well as $500 million later in that sentence.
- Mph is spelled-out in the MH, but it is abbreviated in the impact.
- Is there any explanation for the lack of weakening over Cuba and Florida?
- How is the damage total $500 million? All I am seeing is $80 million in NC, $118 million in Virgina, and $4.4 million in Maryland; this does not add up to 500 million.
- "the floodwaters left a 12 mile portion of" - Convert 12 miles to kilometres.
- "$80 million (2006 :USD, $87.2 million 2011 USD)" - Replace the colon with a semicolon.
- "all but $4 million of which from crop damage." - Add an inflation template.
- "FEMA provided about $7.3 million (2006 USD)" - Add an inflation template.
- Reference 1, the TCR, is a deadlink
- Reference 1-11 don't have the specific dates on them.
- The first name of the authors are missing from #2-11.
- There is an inconsistency with the dates on the references.
- Reference 72 is not in Cite Web format
- This is a nice article, but lacking in some areas. In addition to the issues above, I would like to note that you should probably (but you don't have to), archive some of the webpages in the references on the Way Back Machine or Web Citation. Currently, there are several of tropical cyclones that are classified as a Good Article or even Feature Article, but have numerous deadlinks. I will let you know if I see anymore issues with the article. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review. I probably should've double-checked it first, considering it's been a work in process for several years. Anywho, I got most of the things. There wasn't an explanation I could find for why Ernesto didn't weaken over Florida, only that it did remain a TS. If I had to guess, it would be since it was so disorganized and so close to warm waters. As for $500 million, the TCR didn't help, since they only gave an overall damage breakdown. As for the semicolon in the damage thing, I'm not sure about that. I always use just a colon, so consistency with other articles would be good. I think $4 million is small enough that it doesn't need inflation, particularly in the context of that sentence. Also, be sure to check the project talk page specifically about inflation. Other than that, I think I got everything. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)