Talk:Hurricane Bawbag/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Titoxd (talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose needs tightening up, in particular the lede and meteorological history. Some specific comments:
Hurricane Bawbag is the colloquial name given to an intense mid-latitude storm, officially named Friedhelm.[1] — this doesn't tell me anything about why this article matters, which is the first sentence's primary role in the article. The article's primary claim to notability, that the storm "brought hurricane-force winds to Scotland during the week beginning on 5 December 2011", should be in the first sentence.

brought hurricane-force winds to Scotland during the week beginning on 5 December 2011. — this sentence makes it seem like it was over Scotland for the entire period between 5–12 December. Be either more vague ("early December") or precise (exact dates), but don't be neither.

The storm also brought prolonged gales and rough seas to many other regions within the British Isles — why not just "the rest of the British Isles"?

Damage figures would be nice in the lede.

At 0000 UTC on 8 December 2011, the Met Office noted a strong mid-latitude low-pressure system along a polar front to the west of Scotland. — it might be easier to just say "mid-latitude cyclone" to avoid the double hyphens. Also, the polar front is the region at the intersection of the polar cell and the Ferrel cell. As such, there cannot be "a polar front" (implying there are many), but rather "the polar front" (implying there is only one).

the cyclone underwent a phase of explosive deepening.[10] — the link to rapid deepening points to an article about tropical cyclones, and this storm is not in that category.

The minimum pressure further dipped to a record 957 mbar (hPa; 28.3 inHg) — the "record" bit is not backed by the references given.

which combined with the extreme winds earned it the label "weather bomb" by meteorologists.[10] — link to bomb (meteorology)

A FAAM research aircraft had intercepted the storm on several occasions as part of the DIAMET research project, providing valuable data on its wind profile, temperature and humidity.[14] — random raw external link

The summit of Cairn Gorm recorded an extreme wind speed of 165 mph (264 km/h), — sustained wind, or gust?

Business experts predicted that the Scottish economy suffered £100 million in losses — please attribute this to somebody, not just "business experts", as that is weasel wording.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
See 1a).
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Some citation cleanup is necessary. For example, citation 22 has a different title than the title of the news article cited, and is missing a publication date. Other cites are also missing dates or authorship information (e.g. citation 23) or correct formatting (citation 31).

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Much furor has been raised over the article's title, and some have raised the point that the Twitter reaction is as much part of the topic as the meteorological aspects of the storm. Even if we do not agree that they should have as much coverage, one and a half sentences are not sufficient coverage, IMO.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The prose needs copyediting, the twitter info needs expanding (especially if you're going to keep the storm article at Hurricane Ball Sack), and citations need to be cleaned. Holding for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Titoxd, good feedback there, particularly some of the suggested changes in point 1. I always thought some of this could have been phrased more eloquently, but never quite managed it. I will work on point 1 over the next few days, and will do what I can to address point 3, although I'm not much of a Twitterer (Tweeter? Twit? :P). Any help, particularly on expanding the Twitter coverage section, would be very welcome. almightybob (pray) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed several of the issues highlighted in 1a), although having failed to find a reference for the Scottish economic loss I have removed the "Business experts" sentence in 1a)11; Also, I see no issue with the rapid deepening link in 1a)6, as the article in question states that the term can be applied to storms in general (and, one supposes, the phenomenon is not strictly limited to tropical cyclones.) --Leigh Hamilton 09:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been ten days since I put the article on hold, and while 1a) has been much improved, the concerns about 3a) are still outstanding. The article is getting there, but it's still not a GA, so I'm

failing it. Some more points to consider in the future:

Add information about what happened in Scandinavia, since the section seems rather short
The meteorological history has an unfinished ring to it.

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm somewhat reluctant to add Scandinavian sources as the storm caused a fatality in Denmark, and I'm unsure if the page title is appropriate. If others wish to add this to the page they are welcome to do so. Kvinde dræbt i storm-ulykke (Woman killed in storm accident).Lacunae (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is broken, Lacunae. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some formatting error I've made, try this [1](still in Danish I'm afraid).Lacunae (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, it would be great to add the thing in. However, as noted on the talk page, the name will be staying the same. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside note, "Hurricane Bawbag is the colloquial name" but so is windstorm Friedhelm, Germany's meteorology institute allows the sponsorship of weather systems to anyone that wants to buy them (cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16852429) The institute is the only one outside the US which names weather systems and is in no way an authority on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.120.131 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]