Hi. I can do this review. Can the nominator please reply and confirm that they are still interested in working on the article? --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lead: must mention the more commonly-use "Level 1 to 5" hurricane intensity scale: compare and contrast with Dvorak (because readers, at least in US, will have heard the 1-to-5 frequently in the news reports)
The table below compared the T numbers used in the Dvorak scale to hurricane categories. I don't see why we'd need to add this sort of information into the lead. The lead is meant to be a broad summary of the article below. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lead: Must explain if hurricanes are included or not
I believe I have now addressed this. Remember that we can't introduce POV into the article, so I've tried to use more global terms. Tropical cyclones include TD, TS, and HU/TY/Intense TC intensities explicitly. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
What is the POV issue? I thought Hurricane simply means a cyclone in the Atlantic, no? Many readers will know what a hurricane is, but will not be familiar with cyclone. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The POV issue is that hurricane is Western Hemisphere-centric. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Footnote in lead: Why is footnote #1 in the lead section? footnotes are optional there, and all material in lead is supposed to also be in the body (where the footnote should normally be placed).
If you want me to remove it, I can. Some people who review GA articles demand it, even if it is optional, as you say. Other references further down the article cover this. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
No need to measure wind speed (fly aircraft into?) - I don't see a comparison of Dvorak vs other intensity schemes which require measuring wind speed. I would think that a HUGE point is that the DT is much simpler/cheaper/safer than flying a plane into a hurricane, etc. Maybe there could be an entire section in the article on "DT contrasted with other estimation approaches" or similar. I see that the section "Evolution" mentions a few other techniques: consider re-casting that section to be "other techniques" section.
I've added a pro/con section, which borrowed (moved) material from other sections into the new section. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Define: "1-min Winds" in table: needs explanation
I have wikilinked to the maximum sustained wind article, which is a thorough treatment of the topic. That should address your concern. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Newer picture? - The chart at top of article looks important historically: the original 1973 technique. But its a bit crude. Doesn't the NOAA have a newer, updated version (public domain) that is cleaner & updated? The could both be in the article.
The last paper by Dvorak in the public domain is from 1984. Wikipedia does normally demand original sources. I have uploaded the two images on the right from the 1984 paper Option 1Option 2. An improvement from your perspective? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ambiguous: section title "Evolution" is ambiguous: does it mean evolution of the creation of the technique? or evolution of a cyclone as it develops? See also note above about changing the Ev section to be "comparison with other techniques"
See if the new section titles are favorable. I'm trying to avoid the terms Dvorak and technique in the section headers, per the Manual of Style. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Letter classification V -Z : The chart at top shows five different development lifespans: V to Z. Those needs to be explained in the article.
I've checked the paper, and the letters appear extraneous. I've removed them from the image. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'll pause for now. Go ahead and address the above as you see fit, then notify me on my talk page, and I'll do some more.
Okay, your recent changes are looking great. Here are a few more thoughts:
Wording: "...use of the Dvorak technique has been to provide a more ..." - Passive grammar. Try " technique is that it provides a more .."
Fact clarification: "... strength more than the constrained 2.5 T numbers per day," - Can that be clarified? It sounds like there is a rule that storms can only change their value by a maximum of 2.5 per day. If that is true, that "rule" or constraint should be explicitly mentioned before this sentence, perhaps much earlier in the article.
I have mentioned this tidbit further up in the article, per your suggestion. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Mention other classification system: The Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale is widely used in the US. A layman reader will want the article to mention the SSHS, briefly define it, and explain how the Dvorak technique is used in relation to SSH: are they two different approaches to the same thing? Or does one just supplement the other? Why does SSHS only have 5 levels, yet Dvorak has more? Which system is more widely used by weather professionals in their own writings? etc.
The reason I haven't mentioned Saffir-Simpson is that it is meant to provide people some idea of what type of wind damage to expect for landfalling systems, while this method is merely assigning tropical cyclone intensity to meteorologists who use the information to then assign the maximum sustained winds. I can see where one might think they are related, since they both deal with wind, but one is assigning an intensity for meteorologists, while the other is giving the public an idea of the type of damage to expect with tropical cyclones of a certain intensity. They appeal to two different groups of people. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Red link: - Probably should create a red link for Hebert-Poteat, per WP:RED, so future readers will have their attention drawn to the fact that a new article needs to be created. For example, see Extratropical transition technique where it is red-linked.
Ambiguous - "Subtropical cyclone intensity cannot be determined using this technique, ..." - Not clear what "this technique" is, since a couple of techniques were mentioned in the preceding few sentences. Just re-state the name of the technique so reader doesn't have to guess.
Caption confusing: "Subtropical Storm Andrea of 2007, a system which the Dvorak technique would improperly diagnose cyclone intensity" - The reader will want a couple more facts on this: (1) what is it about Andrea that would cause the DT to fail? and (2) citation needed, since it is identifying a flaw in the DT, the reader may want to go read more about this flaw. I looked in the article body, but did not see any other metion of Andrea in the article. Also, the grammar of that caption is not quite right. Maybe "The Dvorak technique does not correctly diagnose cyclone intensity for storms like Andrea because blah, blah."
Reworded per your suggestion. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I checked disambig links: looks good
I checked external links: looks good
That's about all I can find. Overall it is a great article, with good graphics and nice prose! If you can address the points above, it will be GA status.
End comments from Noleander. --15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've marked the article with GA status. I disagree on the SSHS issue, but I don't think that is a show stopper. --Noleander (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
How about including some information from other countries and how they use the Dvorak Technique inc why the JMA doesn't use it. This info should be available in amongst the various presentations provided by the WMO Conference.Jason Rees (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Used information from the reference. Thanks Jason. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
