Talk:Hurricane Diana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Speaking of linking, the 1990 AHS is linked twice in the lede. Pick and choose
  • Only there once Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• The second sentence tries to cram far too much information in. Try and re-organize so it's more manageable.
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• You use "Tropical Storm Diana" written out fully twice in the lede. Watch out for redundancies like this.
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• There should be SSHS mentioned somewhere in the lede, seeing as Category 2 is mentioned
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overall, the lede has one very large paragraph and one very small one. Try balancing them out.
  • Rewrote both but once more info is added the second one can be made longer. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Tropical wave should be linked
• "but a considerable large amount of thunderstorm activity." - considerable and large are redundant (not to mention grammatically incorrect)
• "and it was likely that Tropical Depression Five had developed at midnight August 4, situated in the southwestern Caribbean Sea" - that is really confusing, with the "likely" part. Please reword it to reflect something a little more assertive of what it actually did. The first sentence of the second paragraph is unneeded, just keep it condensed for simplification
• "the National Hurricane Center assigned the system to the name Diana" - the wording is a bit awkward, with "assigned the system to"
• "Upgrading into a tropical storm, Diana intensified rapidly in the northwestern Caribbean Sea, approaching hurricane status late on August 5" - few problems. First, the first clause suggests that Diana upgraded something, so rewording is needed. Second, you say twice (here and in the subsequent sentence) that Diana approached hurricane status. However (as I learned in the following sentence) its peak winds were 65 mph, which isn't that close to hurricane status. Was it ever forecast to hit the Yucatan Peninsula as a hurricane? If not, I don't think you need the wording "approached hurricane status", since it is implying something that didn't happen. You could say a 60 or 55 mph storm is approaching hurricane status if it was still intensifying, after all
• "Moving over the Yucatan Peninsula, Tropical Storm Diana weakened rapidly just inland, but then ceased to further deteriorate over land." - that definitely should be worded better. Something like "The storm initially rapidly weakened over land, although it retained winds of X until moving over open waters"
• "When Tropical Storm 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, where it encountered much more favorable conditions for further intensification. " - please trim, cut, split, fix. Even I was confused what happened, who did what. Also, no need to keep saying "Tropical Storm Diana"
• Little quibble, but the end of the second paragraph suggests that it only was a C2 status briefly for some unknown reason. Because you put the landfall in the following paragraph, I was left a little confused. I think the landfall sentence should be included with the previous one
• "Diana continued to rapidly weakened inland" - aside from being grammatically incorrect (split infinitive, plus "to weakened" is wrong), it is redundant, since the previous sentence said it rapidly weakened.
• Any more preparations, other than watches/warnings?
• Speaking of watches/warnings, the first sentence doesn't have any indication what country (other than Belize) it is referring to.
• "(39 to 73 mph (39 to 118 km/h))" - poor formatting with the double parenthesis - please fix
• "Early on August 7, the National Hurricane Center anticipated on hurricane conditions with 24 hours" - am I missing something there? "with 24 hours" doesn't make sense...
• Was there any impact in Belize?
• "Rough seas was reported mainly between Coatzacoalcos and Tampico, which were closed during the passage of Diana" - the cities were closed? Also, watch for grammar error
• What does it mean that 75,000 people were affected?
• You use "also" in two consecutive sentences...
• The impact is very lacking. For such high damage/deaths in Mexico, there should be more on what the hurricane did.
• Ref 2 doesn't cover this - "In Arizona, some areas received up to two in (51 mm) of rain during the system's passage"
• "Vista reporting .09 in (2.3 m), Del Mar had .08 in (two m), and Oceanside measuring .3 in (0.7 m)" - watch your conversions. 0.3 inches is certainly not 0.7 m, and the rest are wrong too.
• Given how short the aftermath is, it could probably be combined with the Mexican impact, unless you can find some other (real) aftermath (like aid/relief).

While a decent effort, there are simply too many problems with the article. I have no choice but to fail the GA nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)