# Talk:Hurricane How

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane How (1951)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 04:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian Paul 04:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

A very nice article, with just a few small points:

Is the second external link necessary when it's already used as a reference?
There's a couple of minor grammatical points, which I've tried to fix, but there are one or two that I'd like you to look at, specifically the repetitive use of words in the second paragraph of "Meteorological history" ("Tropical Storm How emerged into the Atlantic Ocean near Vero Beach, quickly intensifying to hurricane strength by October 3. Turning northeastward, it continued to intensify...") and the first paragraph of "Impact and records" ("and instead were in squalls were confined to squalls", which I'm guessing is part of a larger error)
First paragraph of "Impact and records," - "As the storm was not terribly well-organized..." seems a bit colloquial, particularly as it isn't referring to a sentient creature
Same section, third paragraph - "Ultimately, 17 people died in the tragedy." - Referring to it as a "tragedy" may be construed as point of view. For example, someone who faces a civil war in their country every day may consider this unfortunate, but far from a tragedy. The best thing to do here, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is to describe what happened (as you have) and let the reader decide from themselves if it was a tragedy or not.
Is there any reason for the final two sentences to be separate from the previous paragraph? It kind of disrupts the flow.
To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 22:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. I fixed everything, although I did not address the last point. Since it was a summary of the impact, I felt should have been separate. The rest of the impact has the paragraphs organized by location. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough on that last one, no problem at all. I believe that this article now meets the Good Article criteria and therefore I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 23:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to this system in the next couple weeks by the end of the month.  The Florida rainfall info for How has been sitting in a spreadsheet for a year or so.  That information was placed online for South Florida Water Management District a year or two ago, by their request.  It is likely to have caused rainfall in the Carolinas, since it impacted New England.  I'm working on the CLIQR database and the Unnamed TS of 1956 right now and How will need to wait for the time being.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Very cool, very cool. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)