Talk:Hurricane Adolph/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Hurricane Adolph (2001)/GA1)
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- There are multiple issues with the lead section:
- Hurricane Adolph was a rare Category 4 hurricane in May. — lacking completely in context, making the lede not clear . Category 4 on what scale? May of what year?
- The first depression of the season formed May 25 and became a hurricane three days later. — more lack of context. Is Adolph the first storm of the season? (Yes, I know it is, but a layman reader will not.) I'd rephrase to "Adolph was the first tropical depression of the year, and formed on May 25; three days later, it had already become a hurricane" or something similar. Also, this is an example of the standard, dry, boring, canned boilerplate explicitly discouraged in tropical cyclone article writing guidance.
Done
- After rapidly intensifying, Adolph became the most powerful storm in terms of wind speed this season, along with Hurricane Juliette. — link to maximum sustained wind; the last part of the sentence (the mention of Juliette) seems rather brief, and you also did not even mention what speeds Adolph attained, or when it did so.
- Done
- It dissipated on June 1. — This sentence is really brief; please expand it.
- Done
- Despite only briefly threatening land, the name was later removed from use. — Why? It seems much more appropriate to mention that Adolph was retired due to political pressure here than it currently is, in the next sentence.
- Done
- Adolph was noteworthy for being the first and so far the only East Pacific hurricane in May to reach Category 4 strength since record keeping began in the East Pacific — WHY is this buried so deep in the lede? This is the storms primary claim of notability, and placing it here is a severe lack of organization in the most critical portion of the article.
- and for being retired for sensitive reasons. — imprecise wording that changes the meaning of what actually happened.
- Meteorological history:
- On May 7, a tropical wave left the coast of Africa. — jargon; link to tropical wave
- Done
- The low entered the Pacific Ocean on May 22, and Dvorak classifications began two days later. — you are relying too much on supporting articles to support the text. It would not hurt anyone to say what Dvorak classifications are used for, such as saying "Dvorak classifications—satellite-based intensity estimates—began two days later." Otherwise, the flow of text is disrupted too much.
- Done
- The newly formed depression moved very slowly due to weak steering currents aloft — newly-formed. This should be hyphenated.
- Done
- resulting in an a typical track towards the east-northeast. — is it a typical track? An atypical track? What makes a track typical or atypical? According to whom it was typical or atypical? What is this sentence even trying to say?
- Done
- Because of these weak steering conditions, the computer models used to predict the movement of the depression varied greatly, with one predicting an eventual Mexican landfall. — computer model is a poor link to use, when you have both tropical cyclone forecast model and tropical cyclone track forecasting available as better links.
- Done
- Located in conditions ideal for tropical development, it formed a central dense overcast, a large area of deep convection. — unclear antecedent for "it". Is it the depression? A computer model? The Mexican landfall? (Yes, only one of those makes sense, but spell it out in the article.)
- Done
- Adolph was in a low wind shear environment with warm sea surface temperatures and as such, the NHC forecasted. — the NHC forecasted what? Fluffy bunnies falling out of the sky? You're missing half of the sentence here.
- Added the remaining half. :P YE Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Adolph turned northward on May 27, a turn influenced by a mid-level ridge building to the east and southeast,[8], thus causing the tropical storm to approach Mexico. — double comma around the reference
- A banding eye feature became apparent on satellite imagery. — what is a banding eye feature? The supporting article does not explain this term.
- The high upper oceanic heat content, good outflow, and lack of vertical shear[9] allowed the hurricane to begin a burst of rapid intensification, dropping 1.46 mbars per hour. [2] — watch your reference spacing at the end of the sentence; its also upper-oceanic.
- Done
- While reducing in size, [9] Adolph reached its peak strength of 145 mph (230 km/h) on August 29.[3] — more ref spacing issues with ref 9
- Done
- Dvorak classifications reported a T-number of 7.0 to this hurricane, equivalent to a low-end Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.[2] — "reported a T-number of 7.0 to this hurricane" sounds wrong, particularly "to".
- Done
- Impact, Records and Naming
- First off, fix the headers' capitalization per WP:MOSHEAD
- Done
- … its close approach to land as well as its slow, unpredictable movement[14] resulted in the issuance of a tropical storm warning and hurricane watch for southern Mexico — missing "a" before hurricane watch; and why is one linked and not the other?
- Done
- Coincidentally, the previous record holder for strongest May hurricane, in 1983 with 110 mph (175 km/h) winds, was also named "Adolph".[2] — is there a link to this article? Why is "Adolph" in quotation marks?
- The World Meteorological Organization received intense criticism for using both Adolph and Israel during the season, — why are these two names bolded?
- First off, fix the headers' capitalization per WP:MOSHEAD
- There are multiple issues with the lead section:
- In fact, the President of the WMO Regional Association IV-which monitors this basin-consulted committee members during the season and removed Israel as a consensus — the way you are using the dashes there, they should be em dashes (—) not en dashes (-)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR): 
- Multiple dead links; please review the external links report from the toolbox at the top of the page and deal with those appropriately.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- No issues here
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No issues here
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No issues here
- 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):
- Why does the first MODIS picture matter? The caption does not indicate the development stage of the storm at the point of the snapshot. Also, link MODIS to an appropriate page
- While not explicitly set out in the GA criteria, you are supposed to alternate pictures left and right, set them all to the left, or set them all to the right, per WP:MOSIMAGES. You are not doing any of them at this point.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Most of my complaints have to do with prose and referencing issues, with some minimal image issues. However, the first two criteria—in particular the second—force me to put the article on hold until the issues are rectified. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
