GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 15:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to straighten this out. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it. Also, I'm not convinced that the plane crash is significant enough to merit mention here (presumably other people have died on this bay in boating incidents, near it in automotive collisions, etc.). If you support, I'll probably just cut that sentence. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The acre-foot actually is the standard unit used by e.g. Texas government agencies to measure inflows, reservoir capacity, and so forth; I agree that it's a bit obscure, so I've wikilinked the unit name. It seems to be the Convert template making that scientific-notation difference happen; I guess it doesn't want to display a value with that many digits. I could switch the metric units to km^3, though the figures would end up a bit small? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What an excellent idea! Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit of an SAT problem, there. I've tried to make it more natural. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the tense. This organization's only been doing this "report card" thing for a handful of years in the 2010s, and it's been a 'C' every year so far; presumably that represents significant progress over conditions in the '70s. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added some context and cleanup info. I've removed the first (irrelevant) figure for the total load carried by the barge involved. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha fixed. :) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched in a 2012 figure that applies to the entire bay system (and not to the offshore catch, which is where most of the Galveston landings are coming from). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53 doesn't cover all of that paragraph of content
Added a source and moved some of this to the "Features" section, where I think it fits better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 is good
  • Ref 30 uses a different date format
Think I've now cleaned up all the dates. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31 is a dead link, ditto ref 45. Ref 45 uses a different date format, and I notice a lot of access dates are likewise in a different format.
31 was redundant, so I've removed it. I've resurrected 45. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all it's a good read. I was curious about the article because I'm quite familiar with Ike/Harvey/1900 Galveston storm. The article did a good job covering the important points of the topic, so I don't think my comments should be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this! As a note, I'm not the main writer of this article, but I've been trying to organize and clean it up to the GA standard, and a second set of eyes is very helpful for spotting places it needs more polish. I've tried to address all of these now; let me know what else you see! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]