Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Fausto (2002)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Hurricane Fausto of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season was a long-lived tropical cyclone. — the adjectival clause in the middle sounds weird. It would sound easier to the ear if you said "Hurricane Fausto was a long-lived tropical cyclone that formed during the 2002 Pacific hurricane season."
      •  Done.
    • The eight tropical cyclone and fifth named storm of the season — "named storm" is hurricane jargon; link to somewhere that explains this term.
      •  Done.
    • Fausto developed on August 21 from a tropical wave that had crossed the Atlantic, — link tropical wave
      •  Done
    • Link the first instances of tropical depression, rapid intensification
      •  Done
    • Fausto ultimately peaked as a strong Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. — Category 4 what?
    • No significant signs of organization occurred, and the tropical wave crossed the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea uneventfully, and ultimately entered the Eastern Pacific Basin on August 17. — link to Caribbean Sea, and also rephrase EPac Basin to simply Pacific Ocean; otherwise, link to tropical cyclone basins so the reader knows what you are talking about.
      •  Done
    • Rapidly organizing, the system was classified using Dvorak technique as early as late on the following day. — two things. First, it's the Dvorak technique. Also, "as early as late on the following day" is rather confusing. Instead of saying "late on the following day", give the UTC time at which the Dvorak analysis was made.
      •  Done
    • Although a broad closed circulation as present on August 19, — was present on August 19; also, broad closed circulation is borderline jargon.
      •  Done
    • and was thus was not immediately classified as a tropical depression. — "and was thus was" is wrong. Fix it.
      •  Done
    • Early on August 21 the National Hurricane Center had initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Eight-E. [2] — missing a comma after the date; link to National Hurricane Center; fix the spacing before the reference
      •  Done
    • After the existence of banding features was noted, — more jargon
      •  Done
    • the intensity increased to 40 mph (65 km/h), — you've been using progressive tenses until this point, so this should be was increased to 40 mph.
      •  Done
    • Fausto began to further strengthen after — "strengthen further" sounds less awkward here
      •  Done
    • Rapid intensification began to occur thereafter, — link to RI, since you have not mentioned it in the body of the article
      •  Done
    • the NHC noted that Fausto exhibited a classic-type banding feature and also noted that the outflow was increasing. — more jargon here: find links for classic-type banding feature (or explain what makes it classic), as well as link to an appropriate article for outflow.
      •  Done
    • The large size and wide spread convection closely resembled a system that would become a major hurricane.[5] — widespread, and explain what a major hurricane is (Cat 3+).
    • The associated banding features began to wrap completely around the system, and evidence of a developing eye feature became present. — why not simply say "evidence of a developing eye was seen?" And also, link to eye (cyclone).
    • Simultaneously, satellites estimated that intensity of Fausto at 75 mph (120 km/h), and as a result, the NHC upgraded it to a hurricane.[6] — this is rather pedantic, but the satellites didn't estimate the intensity; the estimates were done using T-numbers via Dvorak. You can say "estimates made with satellite imagery" or something similar.
    • Although the eye feature became obscured and banding features appeared to be dissipating six hours later, the NHC predicted rapid intensification. [7] — six hours later from when? You haven't provided any time references since the start of RI. Also fix the spacing before the reference.
      •  Done
        • While you did provide the "six hours after becoming a hurricane" bit, you missed the gist of my point. If you want to use the sentence you wrote, then provide the UTC time at which the NHC declared the storm to be hurricane-strength at the end of the previous paragraph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • and Fausto became a category 2 hurricane.[8] — be consistent in your capitalization. First, you said Category 4 hurricane in the lede; then after, you say Category 3.
      •  Done
    • Although the convective cloud tops had warmed slightly on August 23, — more weather pornjargon. Rephrase.
      •  Done
    • …winds continued to increase, and intensity estimates at University of Wisconsin — how about "intensity estimates made at the University of Wisconsin"? You are missing an article and a verb there.
      •  Done
    • though the National Hurricane Center was in agreement with estimates using the Dvorak Technique, which estimated winds at 115 mph (185 km/h). — estimates from whom? SAB?
      •  Done
        •  Not done: It's actually worse than it was before. First, if you have three T-numbers, you have to say three Dvorak Techniques. But my point is that TAFB, SAB and AFWA were the agencies that made the Dvorak analyses, and I asked you to name them. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With winds at 115 mph (185 km/h), Fausto had intensified into a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. This made Fausto a major hurricane, a storm with winds of at least 111 mph (180 km/h).[9] — combine these two sentences. They are both basically saying the same thing. You can say, "With winds of 115 mph (185 km/h), Fausto had become a major hurricane—a storm of Category 3 intensity or greater in the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale." No need for the 111+ mph tidbit.
      •  Done
    • Fausto continued to intensify, although the NHC anticapted strengthening to cease, and thus move into areas of colder sea surface temperatures.[10] — anticipated, not anticapted. Also, it seems to me that you're confusing cause and effect here. The NHC said that because the storm was going to weaken, it would then move into colder waters? I don't think so. It seems much more plausible that it was the other way around.
      •  Done
    • and Fausto became a category 4 hurricane.[11] Becoming a category 4 hurricane, Fausto attained its peak intensity, — again, be consistent. Category 4.
      •  Done
    • Deep convection around the eyewall began to diminish, and Fausto then weakened to a category 3 hurricane.[13] — more jargon ("deep convection") and again, be consistent on category vs. Category.
      •  Done
    • After quickly dropping further to a Category 2 hurricane, Fausto steadily weakening at nearly the same rate as it had intensified.[14] — multiple issues here. First, "quickly dropping" in what? (Add strength, intensity). Also Fausto steadily weakened at nearly the same rate. Not steadily weakening.
      •  Done
    • Although Fausto held steady as a category 2 hurricane for 18 hours, it began to rapidly weaken back into a Category 1 hurricane,[15] — more inconsistency, even within the same sentence.
      •  Done
    • Weakening to a tropical storm, Forecaster Miles Lawrence at the National Hurricane Center noted "...there is no longer any deep convection associated with its circulation...", although Fausto still remained a tropical cyclone.[16] — multiple issues with this sentence as well. You said that Fausto had already weakened, so it has to be "After Fausto had weakened to a tropical storm," or "While Fausto was weakening into a tropical storm," but the current formulation doesn't work. Also, you are missing a comma after "noted".
      •  Done
    • Shortly thereafter, the National Hurricane Center issued the final advisory on Fausto, although not for dissipation, but rather that the storm crossed 140°W longitude, and had entered the area of responsibility for the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC).[18] — in this case, it would be its final advisory on Fausto. Consider linking to 140th meridian west as well.
    • Entering the Central Pacific Basin, post-storm analysis from the CPHC indicated that Fausto was a tropical storm upon emerging into the Area of Responsibility (AOR),[1][19] — not sure why "Area of Responsibility" is capitalized, since it is not a proper noun; also, you would need to say "the CPHC's area of responsibility" or "its area of responsibility." The current wording is sub-optimal.
    • the CPHC quickly declared Fausto a remnant low over 800 mi (1287 km) north of Hilo, Hawaii on August 28 at 1200 UTC.[19] — you are missing "while the storm system was located" before 800 mi. Otherwise, it sounds wrong.
    • Although Fausto headed generally northwest while a tropical cyclone, it curved west-northwest after degenerating into a remnant low. Why?
    • while located roughly 632 mi (1017 km) north of Oahu. — watch your significant digits here. Was the position given to the kilometer?
    • A mid-latitude cyclone approached and caused Fausto to accelerate northward, while no further re-intensification occurred. — you just said that no re-intensification occurred on the previous sentence. Use "the intensity was maintained" or something else, but add some variety, please.
      •  Done
    • Fausto did not have any affect on land, — effect
      •  Done
    • The mid-latitude cyclone that absorbed Fausto passed over the Aleutian Islands.[20] Impact from the remnants of Fausto, if any, is unknown in the Aleutian Islands or mainland Alaska is unknown. — combine the sentences. "… passed over the Aleutian Islands; damage there, or in mainland Alaska is unknown" works.
      •  Done
        •  Not done: Again, it's worse than it was before. and impact from the remnants of Fausto, if any, is unknown in the Aleutian Islands or mainland Alaska is unknown. — You need to start sentences with a capital letter, and you replaced the repetition that I complained about with a rather-large grammatical error. "Impact from the remnants of Fausto in the Aleutian Islands or mainland Alaska is unknown." works as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I got it. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although sea surface temperature anomalies are usually attributed to the developed of an El Niño, the El Nino had no effect with atmospheric conditions.[20] — to the development of an El Niño
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      •  Done
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Article checks out on all criteria, except prose, where I have severe reservations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May I have another day to fix these issues? YE Tropical Cyclone 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant improvements to the article have been made, but several issues are still outstanding. I'll give another three days for these to be remedied, and at the end of that time period, I'll either pass or fail the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues addressed. Passed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Fausto_(2002)/GA2&oldid=1146786338"