Talk:January 1982 California floods
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Ganesha811 in topic Sourcing
 | January 1982 California floods has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 9, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from January 1982 California floods appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 17:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that over 18,000 different landslides occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area during the January 1982 California floods? Source: Landslides, floods, and marine effects of the storm of January 3–5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California
- ALT1 ... that over 18,000 different landslides swept through the the San Francisco Bay Area with little warning during the January 1982 California floods? Source: Landslides, floods, and marine effects of the storm of January 3–5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California
- ALT2 ... that during the January 1982 California floods, over 18,000 different landslides swept through the the San Francisco Bay Area with little warning? Source: Landslides, floods, and marine effects of the storm of January 3–5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California
- Reviewed:
Created by ChrisWx (talk). Self-nominated at 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/January 1982 California floods; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Everything else looks good, but I'm not sure about the wording of the original hook based on the source provided. The hook isn't technically wrong, but the source gives a slightly different fact, saying, More than 18,000 of the slides induced by the storm transformed into debris flows that swept down hillslopes or drainages with little warning.
The current hook says that over 18,000 slides occurred overall, while the source says that over 18,000 slides swept with little warning. I've added ALT1 which I believe follows the meaning in the source while still staying interesting. Thanks for your hard work! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bsoyka: Thank you for reviewing, ALT1 does better represent the source, and the only changes I would make to the hook is that I would put "...that during the January 1982 California floods," first and remove it at the end, since I think it sounds a bit cleaner that way. No concerns about it otherwise. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:January 1982 California floods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth and upcoming review to be this one! Looking forward to delivering your first GA, ChrisWx! Reviewing will take a few days, and since it's weather-related, I'm at least in my comfort zone reviewing this. ;) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I think overall it's well-written! There may be a few spots where the grammar might need fixing but otherwise it looks good! I'll note any grammar issues in my comments section.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I do think the lead needs some work, especially expansion. I'll explain this more in-depth in my comments!
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No copyright concerns; nothing on Earwig's Copyvio Detector Tool!
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No concerns about unstability!
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Only image used in the article is in the public domains, therefore no issues!
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- I'd remove the time from the only image's caption; I think the date for the image is fine!
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments edit
Lead edit
- Remove citation for the fatalities and damage totals in lead – this is already noted further in the article, per MOS:LEADCITE.
- Consider expanding the lead! Only two sentences in the lead? I'd expand it with impacts stemming from the floods!
Done With a few notes:
- I included
especially in Santa Cruz and Marin counties
while describing the impacts from isolated communities per the information I included regarding multiple places in Santa Cruz County, as well as some places in Marin County in the Impact section. If you think this line should be modified or removed, then I will not object to that. - I say
over 7,500 homes and businesses were damaged, with more than 250 destroyed.
per WP:CALC, adding together the >6,000 homes damaged by the flooding and the 1,500 businesses damaged, as well as the 231 homes + 65 businesses destroyed.
- I included
- If there are any problems with the new lead that need to be addressed, please let me know. Courtesy ping @Tails Wx:. Thanks, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Prose edit
- Link Pacific Ocean in the meteorological synopsis section.
- Link low-pressure area, also in the meteorological synopsis section.
- "and causing storms to form" – how about "producing thunderstorms"?
- In the "Impact" section – "resulting in $66 million in damage, as well as 25 deaths from landslide impacts" – how about "resulting in $66 million in damage and 25 fatalities"?
- "where 14 people died" – I'd say "where 14 people were killed".
- "As a result of the flooding, landslides, and isolation of homes which had occurred in the county, 22 people were killed, 50 people were injured, 400 people were displaced from their homes, and 300 houses were damaged, with 150 being destroyed." – why not split this sentence? It's a bit too long; try "As a result of the flooding, landslides, and isolation of homes which had occurred in the county, 22 people were killed, 50 people were injured, and 400 people were displaced from their homes. Additionally, 300 houses were damaged, with 150 being destroyed."
- "severely damaging its water systems, and leaving it isolated for multiple days" – re-word to "severely damaging its water systems, isolating it for several days".
- "prevent people who didn't live in the region" – why not try "prevent people who did not reside in the region"? Also, where is the "region", Marin County itself or surrounding areas?
- "In a house where children were trapped inside following a landslide, a large crane was used to clear the rubble and attempt to rescue them" – this sentence reads a bit wonky; how about "A large crane was used to clear the rubble and rescue children from a house that was impacted by a landslide".
- "most significantly damaged, receiving up to 6 feet (1.8 m) of water." – "receiving" to "being inundated in".
- "for nearby residents' safety" – try "for the safety of nearby residents".
- "100 snow slides were" – isn't "snow slides" one word, or am I missing something?
That's all I've got, courtesy ping ChrisWx! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- All my concerns are addressed, happy to pass this review and promote this article to a GA! Thanks, and congratulations on your first GA, ChrisWx! :D ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sourcing edit
@Tails Wx, @ChrisWx, just a couple of comments on the GA review. I'm not sure that a post from a random Patch.com contributor should be considered reliable. However, that source cites a Santa Cruz Sentinel article (link) which could be used. There's also a typo in in the Niekerken cite (should be Chronicle). If you could address these issues, that would be great and I should then be able to asses the review for the GA backlog drive. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, @Ganesha811! I've taken care of both issues here. I apologize for not realizing and noticing this earlier. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Great! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)