Talk:Hurricane Beth/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"...Beth's genesis was impeded by a cold environment surrounding the storm." - I think you might want to specify what you mean by "cold environment", because even I was trying to figure it out. I trying to guess what it meant by "cold environment"; was it cold weather, cold air, cold SST's, or all the above?

Probably a cold air mass aloft, but it would be OR to go into any further detail. Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...it achieved fully tropical characteristics and peaked as a modest Category 1 hurricane." - Probably should link Category 1 hurricane to the SSHS here, and not wait until the second paragraph of the MH.

Meteorological history

"On August 9, a low pressure system in the upper levels of the atmosphere formed off the east coast of Florida. It moved down to the surface by the next day and acquired the characteristics of a tropical cyclone; it is officially stated to have become a tropical depression at 1200 UTC." - Wait a sec, did the system became a tropical depression on August 10 or 11th? Because the infobox says reads August 11, it might make some people think that this article is contradicting itself; the MH say's that depression formed on August 10, while the infobox says August 11. `
Delink Florida and Nova Scotia; both are linked in the lead.
Abbreviate 19 miles per hour and 990 millibars to remain consistent which the other units used in the article.
The depression slowly advanced northeastward within a relatively cold environment..." - Same issue as in the lead
"On August 16, it made its initial landfall near Copper Lake before crossing Cape Breton Island." - Remove "its initial", because that statement currently implies that Beth made more than one landfall, with the word "initial" meaning first in a case like this.
"Shortly thereafter, Beth was swept up by a nearby cold front..." - I know that there has to be a better set of words than "swept up", especially in terms of meteorology, however, it you cannot find a replacement, I will let this issue go.

"Swept up" is accurate and indeed acceptable for meteorological writing. It doesn't make sense to use complex terminology when simpler phrases work just as well. Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...and transitioned into an extratropical cyclone." - So apparently the remnants of Beth went nowhere? Add something like after that like: "the remnants of Beth were last noted over western Newfoundland".

The MWR doesn't say anything about post-ET transition track. Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep and Impact

"Halifax International Airport reported 10.49 inches (266 mm) of rainfall in the span of 30 hours." - Abbreviate inches, and wikilink both units.
Add inflation templates to $3.5 million and $5.1 million USD.
For being the second wettest tropical cyclone in Canada (technically first since Harvey was an extratropical storm at the time), I think you should add "{{Wettest tropical cyclones in Canada}}" to this somewhere in this section. You may also want to state that in text that Beth was the second (or first, depending how you look at it) wettest tropical cyclone in the history of Canada. BTW, that would have been a good DYK fact, as they had one for a depression in 1970 for being the wettest in Puerto Rico.

Eh, I'm not a huge fan of those templates, unless the article is substantial enough to support them comfortably (which this page unfortunately is not). Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reference #2 has the wrong URL, because I click on it and the page opened and said "Climatological Data for October, 1910", instead of "Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1971".
On Reference #4, the accessdate is November 1, 1971, which is incorrect as either the accessdate or the date of the page "Major Hurricanes". Unless, someone wants us to believe that that webpage was created on November 1, 1971 or that they had access to the internet back in 1971. Oh, by bad, I think that someone did that by accident, and meant to enter November 1, 2010, as the other refs have their accessdates reading that.

Summary

Good job on this article, Juliancolton. However, there is a little bit more work left to make it to GA criteria. When you fix the issues that I presented, let me know, so I can pass this article for GA.--12george1 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've left a few responses to your concerns, but otherwise I've completed most of your other suggestions. Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pass, since you have fixed most of my issues.--12george1 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]