Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2011)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, nice job on this! Looks pretty good, but of course there's room for improvement. Here's what I'm seeing in the way of GA:

• Areas affected: I understand the need to stave off overlinking, but it looks really weird for three regions in a row to be linked and the fourth unlinked. Also, I would standardize between UK in the lead and Europe in the infobox.
  • I just restructured the first sentence completely. It's probably a bit more interesting anyways. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The lead goes too far into synoptic history. Currently the intro accounts for over 1/4 of the article's wordcount. I would see if you could summarize the meteo stuff into one paragraph, and then perhaps add a little detail to the impact summary.
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• as increased wind shear from a nearby cold-core low... - thermal structure wording is weird. I would just say upper-level trough, upper low, ET low, mid-lat low, whatever.
  • I have corrected this issue. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Despite the poor presentation on geostationary satellite images - needlessly specific, since we don't really use any other kind of satellites for most intensity assessments.
  • Well there's always microwave imagery, but I guess you're right in saying there's no need to be so specific, so I removed the usage. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• As the upper-level low moved closer to Ophelia, inducing increasingly unfavorable shear near the center of the storm - nitpicky, but the shear surely enveloped the whole circulation instead of only affecting the center.
  •  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• become completely exposed to view - "void of thunderstorms"?
  • Used your suggestion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you can do, but the second paragraph of the MH kind of rambles on. I would like to see a tighter summary, possibly as simple as indicating that the storm underwent fluctuations in intensity and CDO coverage before initial dissipation.

• The transition between second and third paras is confusing. You leave off the dissipation phase by saying there was no convection near the LLC, leading to its exposure, but start off the next paragraph indicating there was somehow convection with the MLL instead. Thunderstorms can't occur in vertical layers, so you need to clear that up.
  •  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you could probably get away with killing off the chances of development in the third paragraph. Forecasting stats aren't that important if they didn't bust horribly.
  • I guess I could, but I believe it offers more analysis into what happened after the system dissipated, and it adds extra transition IMO. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Deep convection blossomed atop the low-level center late on September 28 - same thing as two points above. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how you want to deal with this.
  •  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• geostationary satellite imagery - same as above GOES comment.
  •  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Atmospheric convection continued to deepen - it's a little late to go with such broad terminology. Again, your call how to fix it, but no need for the atmospheric bit since we've established this was an atmospheric event.
  • Corrected the sentence. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The impact section is better in terms of writing and clarity, but it's lacking in content. The last paragraph talks about what could possibly happen but never says what did, which is extremely unsatisfying for an historical event account. I have some articles that you could use to flesh it out, but they're by archive, so I'll chat with you on IRC to work out something.

Overall, I'd say this should keep you busy for a while, but it's doable by all means. I'll even help to the extent I'm allowed (I'm sure nobody will object to pushing the boundaries in the interests of quality). On-hold for a while. Juliancolton (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm happy with your progress. Passing the article. Juliancolton (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)