Fellow Wikipedians, allow me to introduce to you Hurricane Nadine of 2012. Although not as epic as hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, Nadine lasted a total of 24 days, placing it among the longest-lived tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic basin. This article is also much better quality than that of Isaac or Sandy, as it features relevant info, very reliable sources, and correctly formatted references. AFAIK, accessibility standards are also met, since the images have alt text and the article contains the newer version of the hurricane season buttons template. The article also doesn't have too much tropical cyclone related jargon, IMO. For those reasons and many more, I believe that Hurricane Nadine (2012) should be considered a featured article. Finally, I would like to add that this is a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments by TheAustinMan
As a general rule of thumb meteorological jargon, although it may not be numerous as you pointed out, should be linked. I make a few cases in the bullets below but in all, all meteorological jargon should be linked, and cases that I do not point out should be fixed regardless under the umbrella of this qualm.
I cannot find them. Would you point them out to me?--12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Nadine turned northward while located well east of major landmasses." → Since it was generally and roughly equidistant from both the Old World and the New World I'd replace the direction of 'east' with something like 'while well removed of major landmasses' or something to that effect.
"Central dense overcast developed and due to favorable conditions, the National Hurricane Center noted the possibility of rapid deepening." → Since this is the start of a new level 2 section it would be most helpful if you included the date, preferably at the start of the sentence.
"Intensification continued at a quicker on September 12, but not rapid rate;" → Seems like you've mixed up the wording to make it some contorted sentence structure. I'd suggest the following – "Intensification continued at a quicker albeit less than rapid rate on September 12."
"...the storm struggled to developed..." → "...the storm struggled to develop..."
Guess I struggled to developed that sentence :P --12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Although it was disorganized, a scatterometer pass indicated tropical storm force winds extended outward up to 230 miles (370 km)." → Define 'it', at the moment it's unclear whether Nadine or the scatterometer pass was disorganized. Going along with this as a general rule of thumb never use 'it'.
Well, it must be the latter because scatterometer has "scatter" in it :P --12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Nadine turned northward on September 14 as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge." → The 'subtropical ridge' part is redundant since you already state that one or two sentences prior. Try mixing the wording around a bit so you don't have to repeat yourself.
Not sure how to fix this.--12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Shortly thereafter, a Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) pass indicated that core convection had began re-organizing." → When using 'had', use 'begun'. Conversely, you can remove 'had' so that 'began' is grammatically correct.
"Late on September 16, the tilted eye disappeared..." → You state that a ragged eye feature was trying to form previously but this is the first time you've stated 'tilted'. I'd suggest adding that the eye was 'tilted' beforehand.
"Despite a large flare of deep convection over the northern semicircle, Nadine weakened slightly on September 17." → You've already stated the date in the sentence prior, so you can exchange the date for a word-form alternative, like 'later that day'. There's a few other times where this happens in the article, so you can exchange wording for those too.
"...with the strongest of the remaining showers and thunderstorms activity being located within a band west and northwest of the center." → Now this is opposite of the plural problem I pointed out earlier. Since you use 'activity', 'showers' AND 'thunderstorms' should be turned to their singular form.
"By late on September 21, the cloud pattern significant deteriorated..." → Wrong form of 'significant', use 'significantly'. Also, if you're going to stick with using 'significantly', I'd suggest that you'd put it after the 'deteriorated': 'deteriorated significantly' flows better.
These are all my prose-based problems for now. Either I or someone else will probably do spotchecking soon, so make sure the prose matches your sources. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I will be very busy for the next few months, SUPPORT on the basis that an eventual spotcheck confirms that all the sources are good to go. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support (also, since you're no longer in the Wikicup, isn't this not a WikiCup nomination now?)
Correct, I have just been eliminated.--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"located well west of Cape Verde " - I think the first two words aren't needed."
"the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0000 UTC on September 12" - I'd say that it was the NHC that did this. Also, it's not quite true. It was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0300. A storm can't be named earlier in post-analysis, it was only named at one time, ever. You can either say it was upgraded to a TS at 0000, and named three hours later, or just say it was named at 0300 UTC, which is true (and the fact that in post-analysis it was 0000 UTC isn't terribly important, if you want to exclude that).
How about I just say "the depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Nadine at 0000 UTC on September 12"?--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you abbreviate the NHC? You use it enough.
Does it really matter?--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It'd help make the writing more concise. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
What is a "shear axis"?
We don't have an article for it and the NHC glossary has nothing about a "shear axis".--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So you should find out what it is and explain it to the readers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"began moving west-northwest and eventually north-northeast around the southwestern periphery of the subtropical ridge" - is that first direction supposed to be "north-northwest"? Also, I'd add "to the" before the first direction.
"The National Hurricane Center corrected an earlier prediction and noted that wind shear over Nadine would not decrease within the next five days, but change directions, allowing a slightly more conductive environment for intensification." - I have no idea what this means. Is it necessary?
" The National Hurricane Center also predicted in an advisory on September 18 that Nadine would transition into an extratropical cyclone by September 21" - any reason you mentioned this? It's true, but it seems trivial.
Shouldn't I make note of the National Hurricane Center's predictions?--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Not if it's true, and not unless you want to have an entire section on the predictions that came true. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If "most of the deep convection dissipated" happened on September 18, then how could "the cloud pattern significantly deteriorated" happen three days later?
Image check - all OK (PD-NASA, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 question:
File:Nadine_2012_track.png - Could the African coast be restored? For a layman, it would be easier to understand the storm path with some continental coast in the image. Currently the path is in the middle of nowhere with some tiny spots of land. GermanJoe (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Reference Comments from Ceranthor
Okay, the first reference seems a little ridiculous to me. Since it is cited to pages 1-4, 6-8, and 12, it seems like utter laziness prompted this over-reliance on one citation. Is it asking too much for you to go through and separate them into the three groups (1-4, 6-8, 12)?
Actually, yes. Reference #1 is the Tropical Cyclone Report, which contains official information from the National Hurricane Center regarding a tropical cyclone. Arguably, this is the most reliable information on Nadine. Therefore, finding substitutions would be difficult and a waste of time, IMO.--12george1 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ref 37 only lists the publisher. It should also list the work, in this case BBC Online which can be added with the parameter |work=.
Ref 4 citation b: Article: "Although thunderstorm activity was initially minimal around the center of circulation, the depression had a well-defined convective band."
Source: "ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT MUCH DEEP CONVECTION NEAR THE CENTER OF CIRCULATION OF THE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM OVER THE CENTRAL TROPICAL ATLANTIC...AN OUTER CONVECTIVE BAND TO THE WEST OF THE CENTER HAS CONTINUED TO BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED." Seems like different interpretation of facts to me. The article should mention that the convective band too was not always well-defined.
Ref 9: Article: "Nadine was held just below the threshold of hurricane intensity."
Source: "INITIAL INTENSITY IS BEING HELD JUST BELOW HURRICANE STRENGTH AT 60 KT" - Seems too closely worded. I suggest a slight CE, and perhaps you should mention the KT measurement, whatever that indicates.
Followed your suggestion. However, we don't use knots for our project, but I guess I could insert the equivalent measurement, 70 mph.--12george1 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ref 16: Article "Late on September 16, the eye became titled"
Source uses tilted. I think this is a typo on your part. Titled sounds meaningless.
Lol, "titled". I fixed it :P --12george1 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Also Ref 16: "LITTLE MORE FRAGMENTED" vs. article's "convective bands became more fragmented". A little close wording here.
After initially tracking northwestward, Nadine turned northward while away from any landmasses. -- does "while away from any landmasses" mean "over the sea", because that would be a less clumsy way of expressing it...
I get what you are saying. However, "over the sea" could potentially indicate anywhere in the ocean, such as a place near land, which is the opposite of what this sentence is conveying.--12george1 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if the point is that it was well away from land, I think it'd read better as Nadine turned northward, well away from any landmass. OTOH, if Nadine turned northward without making landfall also conveys the intended meaning, I think that sounds even better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna go with your former suggestion (Nadine turned northward, well away from any landmass), since the latter still leaves open the possibility that Nadine was close to land.--12george1 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
However, vertical wind shear weakened Nadine back to a tropical storm by September 16. -- while I'm not a fanatic about avoiding "however", I think we should minimise its use and it doesn't seem necessary her. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)