I am nominating this for featured article because it covers a very interesting and unusual storm. Most hurricanes move boringly from Africa and move west across the Caribbean, but Lenny didn't get the message. It moved to the east across the Caribbean, and what's more, it decided to become the strongest November hurricane on record. It caused a lot of damage across the region, and I believe the article covers its history, impact, and aftermath rather well. I hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Why italicize BBC and Reuters? Why not italicize Island Sun?
They are news articles. I fixed Island Sun. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
BBC is a broadcasting corporation, and Reuters is a news agency; Island Sun is a newspaper. Generally, only newspapers names are italicized in citations. Auree★★ 20:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I changed BBC to "agency=BBC". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha, I hate to say it but it should've been the other way around. :P Reuters is the agency here, while the publisher field works for sites like BBC. In general, there should be a bit more accuracy in how citation fields are used in particular for authors, publishers, and works; I'm seeing several instances where publishers are erroneously listed as authors (FN 33, 34, 46, etc.), or where a division of an agency is listed as the author while the parent agency is listed as the publisher, when the division is actually part of the publisher (e.g. FN 49, 56 (needs consistency with the other NHC sources)). Overall the citation formatting needs a bit attention and could be done more professionally. P.S, you're missing a publisher for FN 43. Auree★★ 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the bit about publishers versus authors. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's self-published. Gary Padgett is a well-known hurricane expert, and his works have been used in several other featured articles. Thanks for the SR! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments: I don't think I've reviewed a hurricane FAC before, so this will be my first--no complaints thus far. (Note that I know almost nothing about the subject.)
"torrential rainfall contaminated the local water supply, and the hurricane killed one person." Was the person killed by the contaminated water supply, or are these two unrelated?
They're most likely unrelated, so I tried to distance them a little. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"When the cyclone was operationally found to have reached tropical storm status" What does it mean that it was "operationally found"? This may just be my ignorance here, but I don't understand what that's saying.
Tried to clarify. "Operationally" usually means "at the time of forecasting" in weather circles, since there aren't a lot of good word choices for that idea. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"The quick intensification was unexpected and occurred after a large area of convection blossomed over the center." Did the large convection blossom cause the quick intensification?
Indeed. I'm not sure if it would be feasible to flesh this out anymore, since it is a fundamental fact of physics that convection basically moves air from the point of origin to elsewhere, leading to lower air pressures. When the low pressure center deepens, the storm inherently has strengthened. If you think that's too specialized a foundation, it can be reworked.
When I wrote that I was wondering if the causation could be made more explicit, but now that I read it again it seems to make enough sense. I suppose you shouldn't have to water it down (ha!) too much. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest linking "mbar" on its first occurrence in the body.
"the public was well-informed" Is the hyphen needed here? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it isn't. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say the hyphen version is more natural than it would be without a hyphen, but I've always written based on what sounds right and not what the rules are. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, Julian's tweaks and explanations for the above comments look good to me.
"In the country, strong winds on the storm's fringe killed a man after striking him with a beam." I see what this is saying, could it be rephrased a little, it almost sounds like the storm hit him with a beam, and then killed him. Would "by" work in place of "after"?
"Due to the heavy rainfall, about 200 farmers in southeastern Puerto Rico" Someone told me on an FAC a month or two ago not to start sentences with "Due to", not sure if that's a rule or a preference, though.
"The hurricane struck only a month after Hurricane Jose had affected the region, causing significant beach erosion along Anguilla's coastline. Damage from Lenny amounted to $65.8 million." Maybe swap the order of these two sentences?
"The hurricane's waves reached 20 ft (6.1 m) along the coasts of Saint Kitts and Nevis, reaching up to 600 ft (180 m) inland." Is there a good way to avoid the "reached... reaching" repetition here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Support pending image checks. Alright, I've finished reading the article, and haven't found anything that should hold this back from promotion. Good job, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I got to everything except your second-to-last bullet. The damage total seems like a solid conclusion that ties up that idea's loose ends, but I could see it going both ways. I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide, since I think it comes down to a judgement call. Juliancolton (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's not too crucial, thanks for the quick responses. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
First off, I really enjoyed reading this article! I just have a bunch of nitpicky things to comment on, all of which are (as always) just suggestions.
I addressed most of these (sans a few that I disagreed with). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
after "Caribbean Sea" in the lead
after "November 14", "weakened to tropical storm intensity", "made landfall on Anguilla" in MH
around "including roads and piers" in Impact
after "the rains resulted in mudslides and flooding"
"duration" in the lead could potentially be changed to "existence"
IDK, "duration" is very neutral. We try and avoid any connotation toward hurricanes being alive, and check out #2 on here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, it just felt a little weird when reading. But now that I think about it, I wish I had imageish skills so I could make an image of an angry living hurricane.
Just something drilled into me by one grammar fiend of an English teacher. I think it's one of those hotly disputed grammar nazi things, so it's not a huge deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I prefer "although", fwiw. Glad it's not a problem :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
"after the center became exposed from the convection due to increased wind shear" is confusing. Maybe try "after the center became exposed from the convection caused by increased wind shear" if that's still scientifically accurate.
So you're suggesting changing "due to" to "caused by"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if that's scientifically accurate. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
"a tropical storm warning and hurricane watch were issues for Jamaica and later the southern coast of the Dominican Republic, and only a hurricane watch was issues for the southern coast of Haiti" is clunky.
Perhaps something like "Although there were initial reports of nine people missing, only two were counted in the death toll for mainland Colombia. Two sailors were killed offshore when their yacht was lost in the southern Caribbean Sea." You may want to specify what country that was near, but that bit's not a big deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I used your wording - I liked it! And the report didn't say what country it was near :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's better but isn't quite there. I would suggest "Waves caused heavy damage in western Guadeloupe and destructive floods further inland; there were five deaths attributed to Lenny on the island." Or the last clause could be "there were five deaths on the island". Does that help some? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ehh, but the waves didn't cause flooding inland. I wanted to combine two fairly boring aspects of the storm, that the extent of damage was from waves in the western portion and flooding inland, not that the two were exactly related. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ohhh. Why not just say that? (e.g. "The extent of damage was from waves in the western portion of the island and from unrelated flooding inland.") Keilana|Parlez ici 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Will do! Funny how that works, where just describing something can create better wording. Thanks :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"By 23 days after the hurricane struck" is awkward.
Flow: Add "then" in "thunderstorms <then> spread across the region" (?), add "that" in "which indicated <that> Lenny had become a Category 2", change "after the sudden weakening" to "after its sudden weakening", "which set a record" could be "setting a record", add "the" to "<the> neighboring Dominican Republic".
Disagreed with first (not needed), agreed with second (better), disagreed with third (its would create an improper antecedent later in the sentence), and agreed with the fourth and fifth. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Didn't notice the one about the third (<blush>) and the first one's ok. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it necessary to say "which extended from the lower to the upper levels of the atmosphere"?
Silly unspecific sources. Then obviously it's fine. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's all I have. Good luck, and please trout me if I did or said something stupid with this; I've really only ever been on the receiving end of FAC (and that was many moons ago). Keilana|Parlez ici 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the great review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'll support as soon as we sort out the last couple kinks. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Support only on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I was this article's GA reviewer and have since been intermittently involved with its development. As a project member of the WPTC, I can say this article is very well researched and factually accurate. Good work! Auree★★ 00:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)