Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Dolores (2015)/GA1

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: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Link tropical cyclone in the first sentence, not second. Also, don't say "strong" twice in the opening sentence - I'd remove the "strong winds" in California part.
  • "The fifth tropical depression and second named storm of the record-breaking 2015 Pacific hurricane season, Dolores formed from a tropical wave on July 11" - where?

Done!~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "An eyewall replacement cycle began and cooler sea-surface temperatures rapidly weakened the hurricane, and Dolores weakened to a tropical storm two days later." - two days after when? The previous sentence doesn't have any dates.
  • "Hurricane conditions were reported on Socorro Island, and island in the open Pacific that is owned by Mexico."
  • "Heavy rain caused a bridge on Interstate 10 to collapse and injure one person; a road was washed out on California State Route 78 near the California–Arizona border." - inappropriate usage of the semicolon
  • Is it worth adding the peak rainfall total in Cali to the lead?
  • "Total damage totaled" - department of redundancy department much?
  • Ref 1 does not cover the first three sentences of the MH.
    • Done!
  • Speaking of refs, the publisher should be "National Hurricane Center", not the URL
Done!
  • You kinda gloss over the origins of Dolores, going right from the TW entering the EPAC to it becoming a TD, even though there were three days in between. Try adding more from the TCR and tropical weather outlooks.
  • Link convection. Also, traditionally we add something like "convection, or thunderstorms", so the article isn't so full of jargon/technical terms.
  • "Late that day" - if it's on the 11th, I suggest re-adding the date, because you hadn't mentioned the date since three sentences prior
  • "Late that day, the depression attained tropical storm intensity and received the name Dolores, as a small central dense overcast developed near the low-level center, and a ship near northeastern quadrant reported 35 knots (40 mph) winds." Few problems. Don't use knots in articles. For NHC basins, we use mph first, with km/h in parenthesis. Also, "near northeastern quadrant" is grammatically awkward. I suggest splitting this sentence into two.
  • "Despite environmental conditions that were nearly ideal and largely favorable for strengthening, moderate northwesterly wind shear caused by a upper-level trough prevented much intensification." - that last part isn't true though, as the storm would become a C4 hurricane. Maybe say something like "prevented intensification at first."
  • "with tropical storm winds not quite reaching the coast of Southwestern Mexico." - this would be more impacts, so it's not really relevant to the MH. Instead, I'd suggest you say something like "Dolores moved northwestward off the southwest coast of Mexico." You don't mention the storm's movement in the first paragraph except for "westward-moving tropical wave"
  • "The cloud pattern of the storm grew more and more organized throughout July 12, with symmetric and organized convection over the center, causing less impediment from the shear, though outflow remained restricted over the western portion of the system." - I'm not sure if the cloud pattern caused less impediment from the shear, that's a bit confusing.
  • Is there a reason you don't mention the upper-level trough that aided in the storm's formation? The TCR said "The genesis of Dolores represents a relatively rare case of tropical cyclone formation in the eastern Pacific associated with the external forcing provided by an upper-level trough" - that seems kinda important
  • "Dolores continued to gradually organize and intensify, with dry air entrainments briefly halting intensification." - the "continued" and "briefly halting" are contradictory in the same sentence.
  • "Wind shear continued to decreased" - grammar
    • Done!
  • " with the NHC warning that the system could quickly become a major hurricane" - we don't generally mention NHC predictions if they come true, since it's more important about what the storm actually did.
  • "Six hours later" - from when? There's no date mentioned.
  • "An automated weather station on the island recording sustained hurricane-force winds. " - grammar. Also, you mention this later in the impacts, so I'm not sure it's needed in the MH
  • "A strengthening trend did not commence" - do you mean "re-strengthening"?
  • "causing the satellite appearance to deteriorate." - this seems unnecessary given the following sentence. Its appearance doesn't matter too much, what matters is what it actually did, and you cover that with "Dolores's structure continued to decay, with an eye no longer apparent and convection waning"
  • "By 12:00 UTC, Dolores had deteriorated to a tropical storm,and with increasing northerly shear, the system eventually degenerated into a post-tropical remnant low about 300 mi (480 km) west of the Baja California coast the next day. " - watch for spacing. I assume the first time reference is July 17 but I'm not sure. I suggest splitting up the sentence, maybe merging the first part into the previous sentence?
  • "Due to the fact that tropical storm-force winds may reach the coast, Tropical Storm Watches were issued for parts of the southwestern coast of Mexico, from Lázaro Cárdenas to Cabo Corrientes. " - the "Due to the fact" and "may reach" are wishy washy. Again, focus on what actually happened. In this instance, something like "Due to the potential for tropical storm-force winds to reach the coast..." Also, who issued the TS watches?
  • "Rainbands occasionally reached the coast of Mexico, causing some heavy rain, but overall, there was no report of monetary damage in mainland Mexico." - the last part isn't backed up by the source.
  • This source from Mexico provides a rainfall map related to Dolores
  • Did you try using any Spanish sources? Try doing a Google search for [huracan dolores], and maybe add "lluvia" (rain). Try this source - [1]
  • Don't use nautical miles. We use miles and km.
  • You mention record monthly rainfall totals in California, but no actual rainfall totals from the storm, just "exceeded 4 in (100 mm)"
  • "The Los Angeles Angels game against the Boston Red Sox on July 19, 2015" - we know the year from the beginning of the article
  • "Another road was washed out by flash flooding, this time along State Route 78 southwest of Cibola, Arizona" - rm "this time"
  • Ref 25 is broken. Can you find another source crediting Dolores for the $50 million in damage?
  • Ref 28 says "$50.977 million", which doesn't match what you wrote. Also, this is an example of synthesizing data. The source doesn't credit Dolores for all of the damage.
    • Not done. @Hurricanehink: The original damage total, $50.477 million, was subtracted by $500,000 in the season article, which is a GA. The subtraction happened because a wildfire unrelated to Dolores caused $500,000. The rest of the damage seems all attributed to Dolores's storms. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you don't have one source for the damage total, I suggest you don't use NCDC to cite the $50.477, but rather use the individual event reports to add up to the $50.477M. That is, cite the $100,000 in Ordway, and go into a bit more detail if you can. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the person who originally found the damage total - I did subtract off $500K from the total since in the list of 77 events only that one wildfire event was unrelated. Using the individual reports may be a bit of a mess though, there are >30 event reports attributing damage to Dolores (though most are below $5000), and just summing the damage values from the twelve events that caused at least $10K in damage gets a total of $50.435M, which doesn't round accurately.~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is decent, but there's still work to be done. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll leave the GAN open for seven days and see where it stands. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Wow. thanks for the thorough review. I appreciate the constructive criticism, and I will get to it ASAP. Thanks again! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did you get to everything? I see you didn't reply to a few comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dolores_(2015)/GA1&oldid=980137176"