Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Gustav/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing this article which is currently at Good Article Nomination. I should have the review completed within an hour or two. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
- ~~Un-bold the name of the article and link Hurricane Gustav there; remove the comma after days and unlink the second use of Gustav~~

I've had this discussion with Sandy Georgia a couple times, and we agreed to follow the precedent of featured articles, Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, and Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994), which do it this way. For the MOS documentation, see WP:BOLDTITLE. Plasticup ^T/C 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Wikilink all place names, bodies of water and meteorology jargon~~

Found a couple of unlinked countries, one body of water, but no meteorology jargon. Most was already linked. Plasticup ^T/C 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formation
- ~~Wikilink all place names, bodies of water and meteorology jargon~~

I don't see any that are not linked previously in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~What were its winds prior to landfall in Haiti?~~

Added this. Plasticup ^T/C 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~What was the intensity at landfall in Haiti?~~

Added this too, but I don't want to get too bogged down in the numbers. Nothing makes an article boring like a pile of numbers. I tried to stick to the big ones: peak wind speed and peak intensity. Plasticup ^T/C 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with Haiti and Jamaica
- ~~Wikilink all place names, bodies of water and meteorology jargon~~
- ~~The section looks like a block of text overwhelmed by references, can you move the references around so that most of the sentences aren't interrupted by a reference?~~
Western Caribbean Sea
- ~~Wikilink all place names, bodies of water and meteorology jargon~~
- A sudden drop in pressure–down 11 mbar (0.32 inHg) to 954 mbar (28.17 inHg) what time did this occur and how long did this take to happen?

Good idea. Added that (6 hours, btw) Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- when it had been a mere tropical storm only 24 hours earlier. mere is somewhat point of view, best not to use it

Relative to a Cat 4, TS is objectively puny. I'm not sure what "point of view" you fear it is representing. Merrian-Webster defines "mere" as being nothing more than, which is appropriate as (24 hours previously) Gustav was nothing more than a tropical storm. Wikitionary defines it as Just, only; the smallest amount; having no greater importance or extent - again, I think that applies. Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Here, even as it brushed the island, Hurricane Gustav reached its peak strength of 150 mph (240 km/h). Add minimum pressure and the record wind gust recorded at landfall

Sounds good. Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 184 kt gust really needs mentioning, it might be a world record if verified by the WMO. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the discussion at the time concluded the measurement must have been erroneous, but a little searching shows that the WMO confirmed it. Thanks - it makes a great addition. Plasticup ^T/C 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico
- ~~Wikilink all place names, bodies of water and meteorology jargon~~

Found one, but again most are already linked. Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Again this section looks like a block of text overwhelmed by references~~
Dissipation
- ~~Split the second paragraph~~

You got it. Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is a very nice article, just minor things here and there. My main issue is the excessive referencing throughout the article. Some places there are three words then a double reference, highly unnecessary. If you can reduce the number of references using the TCR that would be preferable. My apologies for this review coming out much later than I said it would. I've been having internet issues all day and I lost connection shortly before finishing my review. I'm putting the article on hold to allow you to address these issues. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Thanks for giving it such a thorough review! I'm sure you'll have more to say when you see what I have and haven't changed, but there's really no rush. Plasticup ^T/C 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, I'm passing the article now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]