Talk:Hurricane Diana/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally didn't want to review this, since I did the previous one, but seeing as it's been up here for a month, I'll review it.

I'm glad to see you addressed many of my comments from the previous GAN. Here are the ones you didn't tackle.

The first sentence has the word "hurricane" three times - try cutting down on the redundancy. Also, landfall should be linked somewhere, so people know what it means early on.
"the National Hurricane Center assigned the system to the name Diana" - the wording is a bit awkward, with "assigned the system to"
Any more preparations, other than watches/warnings? I find it unlikely only 300 people evacuated. Were there any shelters opened?
- Here is a link for Yucatan Peninsula stuff
Was there any impact in Belize?
What does it mean that 75,000 people were affected?
You use "also" in two consecutive sentences... (in Elsewhere)

Here are some additional comments.

"at midnight August 4" - you should specify that it's 0000 UTC, which isn't really midnight (since local time would be several hours different)
"When Diana entered the southern Gulf of Mexico, the trough of low pressure in that vicinity weakened and steering currents caused the storm to head westward. " - that's still a bit verbose. Try and rewrite it so it's more natural
You mention the 100 mph twice in consecutive sentences. I think you could get away with just saying "it made landfall at that same intensity", or some other wording of your choice
"Early on August 7, the National Hurricane Center anticipated on hurricane conditions within 24 hours, and as a result, a hurricane warning was issued for Nautla to Le Pesca" - the "anticipated on" doesn't work too well
The sentence covering the California rainfall doesn't mention Diana at all, and the HPC report just says the system dissipated over Arizona. There is no mention of "bringing heavy rainfall to the region". However, here is a Link that covers actual impact in the SW US and mentioning Diana

IMO, the article doesn't feel like it has enough info, for a storm that's only 21 years old and caused 139 deaths and $90 million in damage (and was retired). If I read the Mexican impact section up until the summary sentence, I would've assumed only 10 deaths or so, given the examples of damage in small areas, but lack of overall epic carnage. Overall, there should be more on what the hurricane did. In just a short search, a lot more useful info was found using Google news. I suggest you go through the Google news archive and get as much as you can, as the article is lacking too much right now for me to pass its GAN. However, the work might be doable in a week's time, so I'll put it on hold. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]