Talk:Hurricane Alex (2016)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Props for getting this article in shape so quickly! Although the storm only just dissipated, I see no evidence to suggest the article fails to meet the "stability" requirements, and there should be only minimal new information from post-season reports. I'll post comments and suggestions as I go along...

On January 13, it developed into a subtropical cyclone well south of the Azores, becoming the first such system in the North Atlantic since an unnamed storm in 1978. - this needs to be clarified to avoid the implication that Alex was the first subtrop since 1978.
One person died when a helicopter was unable to transport them to a hospital. - this should specify that the injury wasn't related to the storm.
The MH (especially the first paragraph) seems overly-technical and verbose. For example, it's a bit arbitrary to identify the original system as "an area of lower-tropospheric vorticity" when there was also an upper-level shortwave. If it were me, I'd probably just boil the whole thing down something like, "Hurricane Alex originated in a [[extratropical cyclone|non-tropical]] weather disturbance that developed over Cuba and the Bahamas on January 6." The next sentence is throwing me off, too - the link to the subtropical jet isn't made very clear, and I'm not sure what the El Nino-exclusive occurrence is.
- Toned that bit down somewhat and removed the arguably tangential El Niño bit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Situated to the east of a shortwave trough, Alex traveled northeast and gradually turned more to the north as it rounded the trough. - if it was on the east side of the trough, it will have already rounded it. The cited discussion says the shortwave-Alex combo turned north around "a broader mid-latitude cyclonic gyre", so I think that should be reflected.
You could probably round off the degrees Fahrenheit to the nearest 5 to jive with the Celsius figures, though that's probably a matter of preference.
- Rounded the first one since that value is probably to the nearest 5, kept the second one as-is since SSTs are to the nearest degree. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm remained vertically stacked with a cold-core low" - another phrase that could perhaps be simplified a little. "The storm remained situated under a cold-core low"?
The impact section looks great.

I've done some minor copyediting throughout, so be sure to check and make sure I haven't botched anything. Images all check out, a spot-check of references reveals no major issues, and the content is comprehensive. I'll be happy to pass the article once some of the prose harshness and jargon concerns have been addressed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be everything~ Thanks for the review, JC! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With your changes, the article easily meets the GA criteria. Nice work, and thanks for getting to these fixes so quickly! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]