Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Nadine (2012)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Nadine (2012) edit

Hurricane Nadine (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, allow me to introduce to you Hurricane Nadine of 2012. Although not as epic as hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, Nadine lasted a total of 24 days, placing it among the longest-lived tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic basin. This article is also much better quality than that of Isaac or Sandy, as it features relevant info, very reliable sources, and correctly formatted references. AFAIK, accessibility standards are also met, since the images have alt text and the article contains the newer version of the hurricane season buttons template. The article also doesn't have too much tropical cyclone related jargon, IMO. For those reasons and many more, I believe that Hurricane Nadine (2012) should be considered a featured article. Finally, I would like to add that this is a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheAustinMan
  • As a general rule of thumb meteorological jargon, although it may not be numerous as you pointed out, should be linked. I make a few cases in the bullets below but in all, all meteorological jargon should be linked, and cases that I do not point out should be fixed regardless under the umbrella of this qualm.
  • I cannot find them. Would you point them out to me?--12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nadine turned northward while located well east of major landmasses." → Since it was generally and roughly equidistant from both the Old World and the New World I'd replace the direction of 'east' with something like 'while well removed of major landmasses' or something to that effect.
  • "...produced tropical storm winds..." → "...produced tropical storm-force winds..."
  • "...before merged with an approaching cold front northeast of the Azores." → 'Merged' should be changed to 'merging'. Also, cold front should be linked.
  • Be careful! You might accidentally start a merge discussion! :P --12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...though because Dvorak intensity T-numbers were between 2.0 and 2.5..." → Link Dvorak intensity.
  • "Later on that day..." → Erroneous 'on'.
  • "Central dense overcast developed and due to favorable conditions, the National Hurricane Center noted the possibility of rapid deepening." → Since this is the start of a new level 2 section it would be most helpful if you included the date, preferably at the start of the sentence.
  • "Intensification continued at a quicker on September 12, but not rapid rate;" → Seems like you've mixed up the wording to make it some contorted sentence structure. I'd suggest the following – "Intensification continued at a quicker albeit less than rapid rate on September 12."
  • "...the storm struggled to developed..." → "...the storm struggled to develop..."
  • Guess I struggled to developed that sentence :P --12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it was disorganized, a scatterometer pass indicated tropical storm force winds extended outward up to 230 miles (370 km)." → Define 'it', at the moment it's unclear whether Nadine or the scatterometer pass was disorganized. Going along with this as a general rule of thumb never use 'it'.
  • Well, it must be the latter because scatterometer has "scatter" in it :P --12george1 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nadine turned northward on September 14 as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge." → The 'subtropical ridge' part is redundant since you already state that one or two sentences prior. Try mixing the wording around a bit so you don't have to repeat yourself.
  • "Shortly thereafter, a Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) pass indicated that core convection had began re-organizing." → When using 'had', use 'begun'. Conversely, you can remove 'had' so that 'began' is grammatically correct.
  • "Late on September 16, the tilted eye disappeared..." → You state that a ragged eye feature was trying to form previously but this is the first time you've stated 'tilted'. I'd suggest adding that the eye was 'tilted' beforehand.
  • "...and the overall showers and thunderstorms activity waned since early that day." → 'Showers' should be made singular, so, 'shower'.
  • "Despite a large flare of deep convection over the northern semicircle, Nadine weakened slightly on September 17." → You've already stated the date in the sentence prior, so you can exchange the date for a word-form alternative, like 'later that day'. There's a few other times where this happens in the article, so you can exchange wording for those too.
  • "The National Hurricane Center also predicted in an advisory on September 18..." → There's a double space between 'advisory' and 'on'.
  • "...with the strongest of the remaining showers and thunderstorms activity being located within a band west and northwest of the center." → Now this is opposite of the plural problem I pointed out earlier. Since you use 'activity', 'showers' AND 'thunderstorms' should be turned to their singular form.
  • "By late on September 21, the cloud pattern significant deteriorated..." → Wrong form of 'significant', use 'significantly'. Also, if you're going to stick with using 'significantly', I'd suggest that you'd put it after the 'deteriorated': 'deteriorated significantly' flows better.
  • "Nadine become devoid of any deep convection." → Use past tense of 'become'.

These are all my prose-based problems for now. Either I or someone else will probably do spotchecking soon, so make sure the prose matches your sources. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I will be very busy for the next few months, SUPPORT on the basis that an eventual spotcheck confirms that all the sources are good to go. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (also, since you're no longer in the Wikicup, isn't this not a WikiCup nomination now?)
  • Correct, I have just been eliminated.--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located well west of Cape Verde " - I think the first two words aren't needed."
  • "while well removed " - in this instance, it should be "well-removed", although I still think the "well" is ambiguous, and you could just say "while away from any landmasses"
  • There is a discrepancy between the infobox and the lead/MH, with regards to km/h.
  • "The remnants of Nadine passed through the islands on October 4, once again bringing relatively strong winds to the islands." - could be more concise
  • "about 885 miles (1,424 km)" - that's a pretty exact measurement in km for "about"
  • Why did the storm initially move to the west-northwest? I'm assuming a ridge?
  • "re-gain" --> "regain"
  • "the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0000 UTC on September 12" - I'd say that it was the NHC that did this. Also, it's not quite true. It was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0300. A storm can't be named earlier in post-analysis, it was only named at one time, ever. You can either say it was upgraded to a TS at 0000, and named three hours later, or just say it was named at 0300 UTC, which is true (and the fact that in post-analysis it was 0000 UTC isn't terribly important, if you want to exclude that).
  • How about I just say "the depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Nadine at 0000 UTC on September 12"?--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "central dense overcast developed" - I think "a" would be helpful before this.
  • Why don't you abbreviate the NHC? You use it enough.
  • What is a "shear axis"?
  • So you should find out what it is and explain it to the readers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began moving west-northwest and eventually north-northeast around the southwestern periphery of the subtropical ridge" - is that first direction supposed to be "north-northwest"? Also, I'd add "to the" before the first direction.
  • "Nadine turned northward on September 14 as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge." - see above. Yea, having read this, the above sentence can go.
  • "The National Hurricane Center corrected an earlier prediction and noted that wind shear over Nadine would not decrease within the next five days, but change directions, allowing a slightly more conductive environment for intensification." - I have no idea what this means. Is it necessary?
  • "Weakening and extratropical transition" - this section title should indicate that it was the first ET
  • "to look a little more ragged" - if this is a quote, who said it?
  • "Around that time, the National Hurricane Center noted that the storm had less convection near the center and had a more asymmetrical appearance." - this is nearly identical to two sentences prior.
  • " The National Hurricane Center also predicted in an advisory on September 18 that Nadine would transition into an extratropical cyclone by September 21" - any reason you mentioned this? It's true, but it seems trivial.
  • Shouldn't I make note of the National Hurricane Center's predictions?--12george1 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if it's true, and not unless you want to have an entire section on the predictions that came true. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "most of the deep convection dissipated" happened on September 18, then how could "the cloud pattern significantly deteriorated" happen three days later?
  • "Category 1 hurricane" - this is the first time you mention anything about a "Category". What is this madness?
  • Any impact in the Azores?
  • I added a little bit more. That is all I could find, after searching through like 20 pages of Google and even some Portuguese sources.--12george1 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally decent article, and I'd be happy to support with my above comments addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Recent edits by an IP should be taken into consideration about the post-tropical phase of Nadine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-NASA, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 question:

  • File:Nadine_2012_track.png - Could the African coast be restored? For a layman, it would be easier to understand the storm path with some continental coast in the image. Currently the path is in the middle of nowhere with some tiny spots of land. GermanJoe (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Comments from Ceranthor
  • Okay, the first reference seems a little ridiculous to me. Since it is cited to pages 1-4, 6-8, and 12, it seems like utter laziness prompted this over-reliance on one citation. Is it asking too much for you to go through and separate them into the three groups (1-4, 6-8, 12)?
  • Actually, yes. Reference #1 is the Tropical Cyclone Report, which contains official information from the National Hurricane Center regarding a tropical cyclone. Arguably, this is the most reliable information on Nadine. Therefore, finding substitutions would be difficult and a waste of time, IMO.--12george1 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 only lists the publisher. It should also list the work, in this case BBC Online which can be added with the parameter |work=.
  • References are wholly reliable!
Spotchecks
  • Ref 1 citation a: checks out
  • Ref 4 citation b: Article: "Although thunderstorm activity was initially minimal around the center of circulation, the depression had a well-defined convective band.[4]"
  • Source: "ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT MUCH DEEP CONVECTION NEAR THE CENTER OF CIRCULATION OF THE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM OVER THE CENTRAL TROPICAL ATLANTIC...AN OUTER CONVECTIVE BAND TO THE WEST OF THE CENTER HAS CONTINUED TO BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED." Seems like different interpretation of facts to me. The article should mention that the convective band too was not always well-defined.
  • Ref 9: Article: "Nadine was held just below the threshold of hurricane intensity.[9]"
  • Source: "INITIAL INTENSITY IS BEING HELD JUST BELOW HURRICANE STRENGTH AT 60 KT" - Seems too closely worded. I suggest a slight CE, and perhaps you should mention the KT measurement, whatever that indicates.
  • Followed your suggestion. However, we don't use knots for our project, but I guess I could insert the equivalent measurement, 70 mph.--12george1 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: Article "Late on September 16, the eye became titled"
  • Source uses tilted. I think this is a typo on your part. Titled sounds meaningless.
  • Also Ref 16: "LITTLE MORE FRAGMENTED" vs. article's "convective bands became more fragmented". A little close wording here.
  • Ref 26: checks out
  • Ref 30: checks out
  • Ref 35: checks out
  • Ref 39: checks out

Prose comments after these are resolved. Please let me know so I don't have to keep checking back. ceranthor 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on references. No time for a prose review I'm afraid, but it seems the others have done a fine job. ceranthor 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- prose in lead could use some work before we look at promoting this:

  • By the following day, it strengthened into Tropical Storm Nadine. -- I'd expect to read "it had strengthened".
  • After initially tracking northwestward, Nadine turned northward while away from any landmasses. -- does "while away from any landmasses" mean "over the sea", because that would be a less clumsy way of expressing it...
  • I get what you are saying. However, "over the sea" could potentially indicate anywhere in the ocean, such as a place near land, which is the opposite of what this sentence is conveying.--12george1 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if the point is that it was well away from land, I think it'd read better as Nadine turned northward, well away from any landmass. OTOH, if Nadine turned northward without making landfall also conveys the intended meaning, I think that sounds even better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go with your former suggestion (Nadine turned northward, well away from any landmass), since the latter still leaves open the possibility that Nadine was close to land.--12george1 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, vertical wind shear weakened Nadine back to a tropical storm by September 16. -- while I'm not a fanatic about avoiding "however", I think we should minimise its use and it doesn't seem necessary her. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Nadine_(2012)/archive1&oldid=1086353594"