Talk:Braer Storm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Few comments.

• Where did the storm form?
  • Addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a reason mph is avoided?
  • It was an ocean storm, so knots made sense. Plus, all the references use knots. If you want me to convert the knots to mph, I can. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • IDK, I just figured that km should be the primary unit, since it affected Europe, and then mph would be in parenthesis. I'm not really familiar with extratropical storm articles, but I think the logic is the same as with tropical cyclones, that the public never uses knots, nor nmi. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Good point. It is addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "as it passed 52.5N 30W" - what is the significance of that location?
  • It is just the location the storm was at during that time. I went ahead and provided a more generic location, since it was located far from any land location. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• The 2nd paragraph of the MH begins by talking about "the new low", but that was only mentioned briefly once in the first paragraph. IDK, when I was reading it, I didn't get a good sense of flow. Two other issues with the opening sentence. It says "to its south" without a clear antecedent, and it also says "had dropped"? There is no context to use such wording
  • I tried to explain the second low's development better by rewording a couple of the lines. I was attempting to go in chronological order, but I can see how this is confusing to the reader. How do you suggest I proceed? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I changed it anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "By early morning of January 10, the pressure at the strong cyclone's center had fallen to 926 millibars (27.3 inHg) near 58.5N 18W as it slowed its northeast motion." - again, there is improper antecedent usage. Grammatically, the main noun is "pressure", so it reads "the pressure had fallen as it slowed its northeast motion". Pretty minor, but the writing could be spiffied up.
  • Also, I noticed it here and elsewhere, but when you say "early morning", is that UTC, or local time? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Local time. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a reason you spell out "millibar" every time?
  • It was output from the convert template. Did you want me to qualify the coding to specify abbreviations instead? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yea, I'd suggest the same if you had "kilometre" written out every time. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe link to something when you say "hurricane-force winds"
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Speaking of linking, you link Iceland the second time you mention it, and not the first. Consistency would be good
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• What is a "weather ship"?
  • Wikilinked to the stub weather ship article. They're exactly what they claim to be...ships in specific locations that are out there for the sole purpose of taking weather observations at sea. They were active from the 1940s into the 1980s, before being replaced with weather buoys. To help support this article, I'm somewhat expanding the weather ship article. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Weather buoys in the region with an identifiers of 44746 and 64043" - dumb question, but is "an identifiers" correct?
  • Fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also, you say the buoys can't record pressures lower than 925, so how was the pressure of 914 recorded? The article never says that.
  • All the articles state about the system is that its central pressure was estimated from the surface analyses available. At work, when this system has been mentioned in passing, they mentioned a figure closer to 910 mb, but without a reliable pressure measurement near the center, it's impossible to know for sure. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You should probably clarify in the article that the pressure is estimated. The current wording makes it look like it was recorded. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "However, the system began to weaken, and by evening" - it doesn't indicate by the evening of what date
  • Addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Where did the storm dissipate?
  • Addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Most importantly, I guess, what meteorological conditions allowed the storm to attain such a record low pressure? You mention the low forming to its south, and that seems to be the only meteorological detail other than what the pressure was and where the low moved.
  • Um, no. Earlier on in the article, the strength of the upper level jet and unusually strong SST gradient in its vicinity were mentioned as factors. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Much better with the current wording. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The sign of the North Atlantic Oscillation switched from positive to weakly negative during the lifetime of this storm" - what is the significance of that?
  • Addressed the significance. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The wind combined with the snowfall led to blizzards across most of Scotland" - did the storm cause snowfall? If so, that sentence is the only indication on there being any snow. Even if not, more clarification is needed.
  • Per newly-found reference, added more about the weather that day in Great Britain. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Much better. Just quick question now - did the storm actually cause the snow? The article mentions snow only once, saying "The wind combined with the snowfall to the north led to blizzards across most of Scotland." It's not clarified whether the storm actually caused it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Another attempt was made to clarify the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
        • ...and a third. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Yay! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Thunderstorms were observed despite the near-freezing readings" - similar to the above, that is the only mention of temperature. Did the cyclone cause lower than normal temperatures? If so, that should be mentioned.
  • The addition of info about the NAO should address this concern. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Did anything happen with the oil spill?
  • Added a line about its cause of the oil spill's rapid dispersion. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to fail it, but I'll put it on hold instead, since my issues might well be easy to address. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why the conversion template is not working properly, but 930 hPa is not 27.0 inHg. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Added another significant figure, so the values look better now. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm very glad I didn't fail it! Thank you for your quick work. There are just a few small things I'd like to see clarified a bit more. Then I'll be glad to pass it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, really minor, but could you split "Preparations and impact" into two paragraph? ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)