Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Titoxd (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 15 August 2011 (→GA Review: up to preps). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the article in the next few days. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

So far, I have only reviewed the article's lede, and I am not impressed. The entire section seems to be just a rehash of the meteorological history of the storm, with very little attention put to what the storm actually did. It needs a significant revamp for it to be an acceptable summary of the article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    • Late in September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Mexico. On October 3, the wave developed into a tropical depression and then into Tropical Storm Norbert the next day. — Why is this in the lede? Why does it matter? (You are also missing a space after the period of this sentence, and you need to link to weather terms to keep the article from being too technical, but I still think you need to get rid of this sentence anyways.)
    • Norbert ultimately became a hurricane on October 7 and rapidly intensified to a Category 2 hurricane and it became a major hurricane on October 8. — You could just said that it rapidly intensified into a major hurricane the day after it formed, instead of going through a laundry list of classification changes.
      • Removed the hurricane and Cat 2 part
    • It continued to strengthen into a Category 4 hurricane before weakening back to a Category 3 by the morning of October 9, and weakened into a Category 1 hurricane that afternoon, but restrengthened into a Category 2 the next day, and became a minimal major hurricane midday on October 11, and it made landfall in Baja California Sur as a Category 2 later that day. — huge run-on sentence, plus most of this information is not needed anyways.
    • Norbert then hit the mainland of Mexico as a Category 1 hurricane. — too imprecise. The "mainland of Mexico" could be anywhere from Sonora to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
    • The final advisory on Norbert was issued on the morning of October 12. — Again, why does a person who is not a weather geek care about the final advisory? Why can't you keep it simple and say that it dissipated?
    • Norbert claimed 25 lives with three people missing and caused $716.4 million in damages throughout Mexico, — $716 million USD or MXN? Is that in present-year dollars or base year dollars?
    • with the worst damage in Baja California and Almos, Sonora. — it's Álamos, not Almos.
    • The origins of Norbert were from a tropical wave the crossed Central America on September 26 and September 27. — the → that
    • which at that time was mentioned on the Tropical Weather Outlook.[2] — the link given for Tropical Weather Outlook does not mention anything about it, so you need to find something different.
    • and satellite intensity estimates using the Dvorak technique suggested tropical storm force winds; — suggested what about the tropical storm force winds? That they went out to eat chicken? You also need a hyphen between storm and force.
    • On October 7, it reached Category 2 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale — you are starting a paragraph with a pronoun, which makes it unclear what antecedent you are using (even if it is fairly obvious from context). Rephrase.
      • Switched "it" to "hurricane Norbert"
    • while Norbert developed well defined and closed eyewall via Microwave imagery.[9] — a well-defined and closed eyewall as seen in microwave imagery.
    • Overnight on October 8, an eye appeared on infrared satellite, indicating that Norbert was intensifying and was upgraded to a major hurricane respectively.[10] — the eye was upgraded to a major hurricane? What? (Split the sentences, you are talking about two different things here.)
    • Continuing to rapidly strengthen over warm sea surface temperatures, it reached Category 4 status late on October 8, after intensifying 45 mph (75 km/h) over the previous 24 hours. — again, unclear antecedent; it = eye or it = Norbert? (It should be obvious which way to fix this.)
    • The storm peak intensity was 135 mph (215 km/h) and a peak pressure of 945 mbar (hPa; 27.91 inHg) while located 350 mi (560 km) south of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. — the storm's peak intensity; link units, as they are not common; link Cabo San Lucas
    • The peak intensity of Norbert is uncertain as aircraft observations were lower the classifications via Dvorak Technique.[1] — than the classifications (and you should probably use a more meaningful word, like "estimates"); also, what does "lower" mean in this context? Lower wind speeds (weaker storm) or lower central pressure (stronger storm)? You need to clarify this.
    • However, the cloud patter became less impressive early on October 9, and was thus downgraded into a Categor y3 hurricane, with winds of 125 mph (205 km/h).[11] — cloud pattern; Category 3, not Categor y3; and why did the storm start to weaken anyways? Colder SSTs? Shear?
    • At that time, it was downgraded into a weak Category 1 hurricane by October 9.[1] — you have two temporal clauses in the sentence ("at the time", "by October 9"), which makes the sentence sound weird. Fix please.
    • On October 10, Norbert turned northbound — you don't turn northbound. You turn northward or towards the north.
    • Norbert began to re-intensify as the cycle completed. — spell out eyewall replacement cycle here, as it has been a while since you mentioned what "cycle" stands for in this instance.
    • The cyclone turned to the north-northeast due to a mid to upper level trough that was moving over the Southwest United States. — don't link to compass directions
    • Norbert managed to restrengthen into a minimal major hurricane on 0600 UTC October 11, — what is a "minimal major hurricane"?
    • A hurricane warning was issued on October 10 for parts of central Baja California from Puerto San Andresito southward to Agua Blanca, and they extended around the peninsula from La Paz to Loreto. — link to tropical cyclone watches and warnings; see if there are suitable links to Puerto San Andresito, and Agua Blanca; definitely link La Paz and Loreto.
    • The warnings also went on the mainland west coast from Topolobampo to Guaymas. — link to both Topolobampo and Guaymas; I don't like "went on", it sounds too informal. Try "warnings were also put in place for the west coast of Sonora from Topolobampo to Guaymas."
    • Hurricane watches were issued from Agua Blanca to Cabo San Lucas, — same here, don't assume the reader knows what a hurricane watch is.
    • and extended around the Baja peninsula to La Paz, and these same areas were also under tropical storm warnings as well. — use a semicolon after La Paz, and remove the "and" after the semicolon.
    • Tropical storm warnings also extended from Loreto northward to Mulege — link Mulegé and fix the accent mark on the last e
    • On October 10, officials in Baja California declared the municipalities of Loreto, Comondú y La Paz disaster areas in anticipation of severe damage from the hurricane.[13] — link to the individual municipalities (see Municipalities of Baja California Sur for links). Also, why do you have a random Spanish conjunction there? It's and, not "y".
    • Los Cabos Mayor, Oscar Nunez, — awkward phrasing. "The mayor of Los Cabos" would be less confusing
    • The local civil protection official stated bridges are ready to begin evacuating. — why "are" and not "were"?
    • In Ciudad Obregon, farmers rushed to fertilize the fields prior to the passage of Norbert[14] — link to Ciudad Obregón, Sonora; why do you have a random tidbit about Sonora in a paragraph almost completely devoted to Baja California Sur? What else happened in Sonora?
    • and local officials were "very worried". — [citation needed]; put the period inside the quotation marks
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    • From the comments above, fails WP:LEAD.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    More to come. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Norbert_(2008)/GA2&oldid=445039299"