Talk:Hurricane Dora (2011)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 18:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the liberty of reviewing this article. Looks decent at first glance... comments as I go along.

The first sentence is a bit overwhelming IMO. It tries to go in two different directions at once, but doesn't quite pull it off.
the onset of cold sea surface temperatures - nitpicking here, but Dora likely moved into the cold SSTs rather than the other way around (so "onset" sounds a bit weird).
I think you should mention in the lead when/why the storm curved more NW, to avoid giving the impression that Baja California is west of Honduras.
Remaining off the coast from its formation to dissipation, effects from Dora were minimal
Situated in an area with favorable atmospheric conditions and warm sea surface temperatures, the tropical cyclone quickly strengthened, developing an intermittent eye before being classified as a hurricane at 1800 UTC on July 19 while roughly 245 mi (400 km) south-southwest of Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca. - bit of a run-on and I'm too lazy to work it out myself.
Upon its reclassification - hmm?
At the same time, eyewall mesovortices were noted on satellite imagery - seeing as "eyewall mesovortex" is a technical term, I don't think it's quite accurate. The NHC discussion says there were "MESOVORTICES WITHIN THE EYE" (little swirly things visible on satellite imagery), which are different from mesovortices within the eyewall (short-lived tornado-like things that are only apparent when your house gets obliterated).
I know what you mean, but it's a little confusing to say the remnants dissipated southwest of Baja California, but also tracked into the SW US.
Did Guerrero really set up nine hundred shelters for an offshore TC? That seems outrageously high...
Not required, but I think you should add brief descriptions to the other storms in the "see also" section, relating them to Dora.

Well, it's in fairly good shape. I've done some copyediting, but nothing so significant as to compromise my impartiality in this review. On-hold until you've addressed the above issues. Nice job! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, since all my concerns have been dealt with. Nice work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]