Wikipedia

Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael/GA1

< Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Hurricane Noah in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 01:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs).

  • Can you link landfall, Atlantic hurricane, and Cat 5 hurricane in the first sentence? Ditto "named storm" in the second, "rapid intensification " in the fourth, and "eye" in the sixth.
  • "The thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and second major hurricane of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, Michael originated from a disturbance that formed over the northwestern Caribbean Sea on October 1–2, 2018." - the first half of the sentence has nothing to do with the second half, since it wasn't a named storm or hurricane during its formative stages. I suggest ending with "Michael originated over the northwestern Caribbean Sea in early October 2018." Or something like that.
  • Is it worth mentioning Michael's passage near Cuba in the lead?
  • "It acquired hurricane-force winds while south of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland on October 13" --> reacquired?
  • Can you cut down on spacing in the first section?
  • I assume you are commenting about white space. I was told at FAC that it has to be that way because otherwise, it violates the guidelines on sandwiching text. See if that is better. NoahTalk 03:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "A large low-pressure area spawned over the mid-to-western Caribbean Sea" - that's not what the NHC says. The NHC does mention the large area of disturbed weather, but not that it was specifically a low pressure area. Also, do you have any more info on what led to that area of disturbed weather? I know TCR doesn't mention it, but maybe in the TWO's or TWD archives?
  • Adjusted... also, I don't see anything worth adding from the TWOs and TWDs. TWDs mention a system forming off Nicaragua by October 4 and tracking NNE, but doesn't have anything prior to that. NoahTalk 13:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • " The National Hurricane Center (NHC) predicted on October 2 that strong upper-level winds would prevent any significant development of the system for at least a couple of days." - bit of a nitpick, but considering the article is written after the fact, and the source was at the time, I suggest using "anticipated" instead of "predicted", since the prediction ended up being true, the source just didn't know it at the time.
  • "Meanwhile, an upper-level trough located over the Gulf of Mexico was imparting vertical wind shear over the system." - is this the same shear you mentioned in the first paragraph? If so, I'm not sure you need to mention it three times in such detail. Twice will do.
  • Oops, I guess I did mention the earlier mention. There is no way to definitively say the shear is the same. I axed the detail at SSTs as I need to say what is causing the second instance of shear. NoahTalk 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Could you link convection when you first mention thunderstorm activity?
  • "The system then proceeded to travel slightly east of north." - steered by...?
  • I suggest mentioning early NHC forecasts of a 60 kt peak, and explain their reasoning. I'm not bashing the NHC, but it's significant that they anticipated a 70 mph storm within five days, and instead it was 160 mph.
  • The first sentence of "Rapid intensification and landfall at peak intensity" is a bit long.
  • Could you mention the conditions that allowed for both periods of RI a bit earlier. You emphasized the shear a lot in the first two paragraphs, so I'm guessing conditions changed. That should be noted earlier.
  • Nope, conditions never changed to allow the first RI... the whole last bit of the first RI paragraph explains the two troughs... The only reason Michael was able to RI was because of those two troughs. I brought that up to the front so it is more clear. NoahTalk 02:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Although Michael had strengthened to 60 mph (95 km/h) by 00:00 UTC on October 8, most of the storm's convection remained displaced to its eastern side." - because of shear? In Ref 8, NHC says "Michael has strengthened today despite moderate westerly shear."
  • "Microwave imagery on the other hand showed that the core of Michael had improved" - not a fan of "on the other hand". Could you reword?
  • Did Michael's passage near Cuba have any meteorological impact worth mentioning?
  • Disc 8 mentions "very warm waters" in the Gulf of Mexico and a high potential for rapid intensification.
  • I get that the storm moved quickly, but the 2nd section feels a bit rushed as is. Could you add anything like when the storm showed up on radar, or when the outer rainbands started moving ashore? Ideally split the section into three paragraphs.
  • Mentioned rainbands and split into three para about the same size. I dont know where to find info on when it appeared on radar. I heard it was on radar halfway through GoM. NoahTalk 03:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Michael had weakened to a minimal Category 3 hurricane as it moved into southwestern Georgia" - TCR says it weakened below major hurricane status before it entered Georgia
  • "Cold, dry air entrained into the circulation; winds also increased northwest of the storm's center, over North Carolina and Virginia, as it elongated." - this could be stronger, it's a bit confusing
  • "another low-level center with a lower pressure had formed further north" - it's "farther". Anytime you're referring to distance, it's "farther". Further, this can get quite pedantic, but I wanted to point it out to improve your writing for the future.
  • "as baroclinic processes began to restrengthen the storm" - I'd clarify you mean the former hurricane
  • "The cyclone turned sharply southeastward and later southward," - is it worth mentioning that it moved around the ridge, per the TCR?
  • I'm not sure I'm a fan of ignoring the TCR regarding Michael's dissipation and instead using a map and a contemporaneous news article. Was this deliberate?
  • The NHC is foolish to cut off ET tracks whenever a center reforms. They don't say a new tropical storm has formed when the center redevelops elsewhere.. it is just a double standard. Center reformations are a common occurrence, but they need a place to stop the TCR as the ET part doesnt matter to them. The issue here is Leslie's ET remnants merged into ET Michael. The NHC cut it off when this happened as the center reformed. NHC doesn't have a good track record with ETs as referenced by European weather offices having later dissipation dates for ex-TCs. NoahTalk 01:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

All in all, pretty good job on the article. However, it seems slightly on the short side, with the history portion only two paragraphs longer than the section in the main article. I suggest you trim down the section in the main article so this sub-article stands out more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricanehink: I should have gotten everything. Sorry my rant above, but NHC's actions on several Ex-TCs have upset me. For instance, declaring Helene dissipated when it was actively hitting the UK up to 3 days later as an ETC. I think Germany kept it 5 days after the NHC dissipated it. NoahTalk 03:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meteorological_history_of_Hurricane_Michael/GA1&oldid=977978571"