Talk:Hurricane Felicia (2009)

	Hurricane Felicia (2009) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 20, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Just as a heads up, I will be updating this article tonight as the tropical cyclone report has been released. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Felicia (2009)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jsayre64 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, this article appears to have exceptionally consistent citations and plenty of illustrations. I'll actually start the review later this evening or tomorrow. --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no major concerns about this article so far.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   Plenty of sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes; no excessive citing in the lead and consistent citations in the rest of the article

   C. No original research:

   It doesn't look like there's any

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No editing disputes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   Image description pages are fine

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

   Looks good

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• "After reaching this strength, unfavorable conditions began to impact the storm while it took on a northwestward path." Specify what unfavorable conditions occurred and avoid passive voice by instead using "the storm" as the subject in the sentence. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than that, the lead looks pretty solid. To make it even better, though, one could add more details such as wind speeds that are found in the "Meteorological history" section. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wind speeds I usually put into the lead are the ones most people look for (based off what I've learned over the years). In general, it's peak intensity, landfall winds and closest approach to land winds. Since Felicia did not make landfall or near land as a tropical cyclone, I've only included the peak speed and for this storm, it's almost a simple curve; winds went up to 145mph then back down, no major re-intensification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but you should probably also include air pressure statistics. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you're aware, I fixed up the deadlinks that were present in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. I was just about to get to that. But it looks like you missed a few, such as the first reference. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I got them this time around. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

• In the first paragraph, "Although poorly defined, the system managed to barely maintained its identity as it tracked westward." Explain how it was "poorly defined" and yet was considered a tropical wave. There's also a verb-tense error. Perhaps "… the system weakened but maintained its identity as a tropical wave" or likewise would fix that and provide some clarification. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly defined just means its not easy to see, not that it doesn't exist. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first paragraph, I'm curious why "eastern Pacific basin" is linked to Pacific hurricane. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the closest thing we have to an article on it and it covers the same general things. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about linking it to Tropical cyclone basins or is that too obvious? :PJason Rees (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first half of this paragraph cites http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-EP082009_Felicia.pdf. You should indicate in the citation what page numbers you used in the document. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For each reference or a single reference? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just list all the page numbers you used from that document in the <ref name= definition. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who are not terribly familiar with meteorological jargon, you should explain (briefly) terms such as "upper-level low" or "upper-level trough." Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked upper-level low to Cold-core low and unless I'm missing something I can't find upper-level trough in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in the third paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linked to Trough (meteorology) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The last sentence of the first paragraph cites http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2009/ep08/ep082009.discus.001.shtml. This report says: "THE DEPRESSION IS LOCATED ONLY ABOUT 500-600 NM WEST OF TROPICAL STORM ENRIQUE...HOWEVER THE CYCLONES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE INFLUENCING EACH OTHER...AND THIS FORECAST ASSUMES THAT ANY INTERACTION WILL BE MINIMAL." You should add a sentence or two saying that forecasters did not expect the other storm to influence Felicia at that time. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel that's really needed, adds contradiction within a short period of time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second paragraph, "By the early morning hours of August 4, the NHC upgraded Tropical Depression Eight-E to Tropical Storm Felicia, the seventh named storm of the season." Since at this time the system is a tropical storm, it might be better to state that it was the sixth tropical storm of the season, as the source says. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't include Tropical Storm Lana which was named by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center but still counts towards the Eastern Pacific total. I believe they meant sixth tropical storm within their area of responsibility. If needed, it can be backed up by the hurricane database. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I think using the database would be the best approach. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last sentence of this section, "… the CPHC issued its final advisory on Felicia as it degenerated into a non-convective remnant low near the Hawaiian Islands." Is there anything simpler to say here? Jsayre64 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortened it to remnant low. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

• In the first paragraph, "Due to the anticipation of weakening prior to it impacting the islands, only minor effects, mainly rainfall, were expected." This sentence structure is very complicated. I suggest, "Because forecasters expected the storm to weaken before it reached the islands, only minor effects—mainly rainfall—were expected." I think that would sound much more clear. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with suggestion (changed because to since as it's the start of the sentence). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second paragraph, "On August 9, the tropical storm watch was expanded to include the island of Oahu." This is very close paraphrasing of the source. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I change/shorten it to make it less like what's in the source? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand, shorten, clarify… anything so it less resembles what NOAA wrote. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shortened it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

• In the Oahu subsection, "There were also five assists Winds at Makapuʻu and one at Kailua Beach." Something looks wrong here, maybe a typo? Jsayre64 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray word left over from a sentence I probably removed while editing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

• You don't need to say that the author is "Staff Writer" if the author is not indicated. You can leave the field blank. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed all the "Staff Writer"s. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]