Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. You can follow the progress in the template below.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

Feel free to correct issues as I mark them or explain why you wrote the way you did.

Lead section

• The sentence "Katrina's origins can be traced to the mid-level remnants of Tropical Depression Ten, a tropical wave, and an upper tropospheric trough." reads almost like the tropical wave and the trough are in apposition to Tropical Depression Ten. I am aware that the Oxford comma clarifies that this is not the case, but for readers reading through initially, it can give the wrong first impression. Indeed, my first impression was that the wave and trough were in apposition until I thought "that can't be correct" and re-read the sentence. Your sentence is correct, but it might give a wrong first impression.
  • I'm unsure of how to better word this to alleviate the potential confusion without it being overly detailed for a lead section. If it's grammatically acceptable I think leaving it is the best course as the article's body has the in-depth explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll try to think of something. If I can't, I'll just pass the article. GA doesn't require perfection—just good quality.

  I couldn't think of anything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• The following clause "The former system emerged as a wave..." can be taken two separate ways, either incorrectly ("[Katrina] emerged as a wave...") or correctly ("[Depression Ten] emerged as a wave..."). Consider revising this sentence.
  • I've adjusted this to The tropical depression emerged as a wave off West Africa on August 8, the second wave followed on August 11, while the trough came into play between August 17 and 23. to more clearly specify the systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Much better!

• In the third paragraph, the first sentence begins with: "Katrina made two landfalls in southeastern Louisiana on August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane". Do you think that there should be some blurb about how the two landfalls is due to crossing the Breton Sound or would that be too much information in the lead section? I had to go to the section on landfalls to figure out what you meant. Alternatively, perhaps mentioning that there were two landfalls is unnecessary information in the lead. What are your thoughts here?
  • I think simplifying it to Katrina struck southeastern Louisiana on August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane... gets the same point across and bypasses the need for the clearer explanation. I've changed it to that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  That also works. Simplicity is a virtue in the lead.

• In the third paragraph: "It briefly deepened and stalled over Quebec, Canada, in early September before resuming its forward motion." I don't think "forward motion" is the right term here. Hurricanes cannot move in "reverse". Would "...before resuming its journey northeast" or something similar work better?
  • Changed to the suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Topics & content

• 1st paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "Of the five primary factors for rapid intensification described by Kaplan and DeMaria (2003), conditions were optimal for four of them." What are these conditions or factors?
  • Forgot to get the full text version of the referenced document. Waiting on a response in order to expand upon that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I have received no reply on getting the full paper. All I can do is just list the five factors described in Kaplan and DeMaria (2003) but not specifically state which four were met. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Understandable. Good articles don't require perfection (this isn't WP:FAC), so I'll strike this issue.

Prose

• In the "Origins" section: Should "origins" in the first sentence be singular or plural? I'm actually unsure here. (This also applies to the section heading.) I guess it depends on whether you view the wave, depression, and trough as multiple individual origins or the interaction between the three as a singular origin. I'll leave this for you to decide. Alternatively, we could request someone with more English experience for a third opinion.
  • Origins would be appropriate here since Katrina developed from multiple systems rather than a single entity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• In the "Origins" section, 6th sentence: "Convective burst" should probably link to convective burst, not convection, since it refers to a specific meteorological phenomenon and not just the general topic of atmospheric convection.
  • I don't believe that's a redlink that will ever see an article. A convective burst is just the abrupt formation of deep convection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's a reasonable argument.

• The acronym "SST" is used only three times after definition, and the usage is somewhat spread across the article. Consider using the unabbreviated form. In any case, the use of "SST temperatures" is nonsensical and should be corrected.
  • Removed the acronym and the silly double temp. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1st paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "With such favorable conditions, Katrina underwent two periods of rapid intensification from August 26 to 28, punctuated by an 18-hour pause on August 27." This is a very informal usage of "such". Consider replacing with a more formal synonym.
  • Changed it to "these" to avoid being dramatic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks!

• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "120 kJ cm^–2". Is kilojoules per unit area (square centimeters here) normally written like this? I would have expected it to be written as kJ/cm². (I know that technically these are identical, but I feel the latter is significantly more readable for less technically-inclined readers.)
  • That's how it was written in the cited paper. I'm fine adding the "/" if it's beneficial. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know which is easier for a layperson to read. Maybe we should get a third opinion from a non-subject matter expert?

  I checked with someone more familiar with technical aspects and it's purely personal preference. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "OHC values exceeded 120 kJ cm–2, with sea temperatures of 79 °F (26 °C) extending to a depth of 360 ft (110 m)." I'm 99.9% confident that is an incorrect comma. However, I feel that this sentence should be fundamentally rewritten due to the dangling participle.
  • Moved it into the preceding sentence for context. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Much better.

• The abbreviation "hPa" (hectopascals) is never defined, and most readers will not recognize it. The wikilink just goes to the generic pascal page, so they can't find out that way either.
  • The lead of the Pascal (unit) page has the explanation: Common multiple units of the pascal are the hectopascal (1 hPa = 100 Pa), which is equal to one millibar... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "By the latter half of August 28, Katrina became "exceptionally large", with tropical storm-force and hurricane-force winds extended 230 mi (370 km) and 105 mi (165 km) from its center respectively." This sentence needs a fundamental rewrite. The latter prepositional phrase is longer than the entire rest of the sentence, and the sentence is bookended by two prepositional phrases. Be active! Let your verbs do the talking! This helps reduce the "dryness" that readers often complain about when reading more technical articles. On a different note, who is being quoted as saying Katrina was "exceptionally large"?
  • For whatever reason I feel like this kind of grammar is a weak point of mine. I slightly modified the sentence and removed the trivial quote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• 1st paragraph of "Gulf Coast landfalls": "However, this cycle was interrupted by an increase in wind shear and entrainment of dry air." This is another example of what I was just talking about. Try this: "However, an increase in wind shear and entrainment of dry air interrupted this cycle." See how it's both more active and more concise? Try going through the rest of the article and see if you can clean up any other similar sentences.
  • Changed to the suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink "entrainment".
  • Linked ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph of "Tornado outbreak and dissipation": "The NHC assessed Katrina's dissipation as a distinct entity by 12:00 UTC on August 31 as it was absorbed into the aforementioned frontal boundary over central Ohio." What aforementioned frontal boundary? You just talked about an atmospheric trough.
  • Changed it to trough. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

• All sources appear reliable and are properly cited.
• Original research spot checks done. No original research found.

Images

• File:Katrina vs sea surface height.jpg: This picture lacks a scale, making it impossible to tell what the scale or range of values is.
  • I couldn't find a version of this image with a scale so I've opted for a different one that emphasizes the warm-core eddy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. This new image is vastly superior.

• A number of images have captions that are very long. Try reducing some of these, either by moving information to the article body or by using more concise wording. (See MOS:CAPSUCCINCT.)
  • Chopped down most of them ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

    Much better! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

• Copyright violation spot checks done. No copyright violations found.

More to come later. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: Thank you for starting this review. I've made suggested adjustments brought up so far. I'm in the middle of moving to a new place so it might take me a little time to reply to future comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about the review; I'll leave it open as long as it takes for you to move and respond to everything. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Made adjustments and replies to most of your comments, have one or two more to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've crossed out the resolved issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Nudging Cyclonebiskit. Any updates? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: I'll be working on more shortly, been exhausted from work the last two weeks. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem, sir! I just wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging and found some more journal articles I need to read through relating to this topic. I'll drop another message here when I feel all the necessary info is added. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done another pass through, and almost everything else has been resolved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience Reaper Eternal! I think I got the last concern. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Cyclonebiskit, but unfortunately this ran into business trip followed by vacation for me so I wasn't on Wikipedia these past 2 weeks. I'll do a final read-through tomorrow (I just got home, exhausted) and it should be good to go. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, take your time and rest up ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)