Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:15, 31 July 2008 [1].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)

edit
Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


I have worked on this article for a hundred edits or so, and I think it is as complete as it will ever be. The prose is polished, the MOS exhaustively consulted, and as far as I know it meets the FAC criteria. Plasticup T/C 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Some of the refs need to be consolidated as per WP:CITE. See "Using the same citation again", which explains how to use the <ref name=""> command. María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. The refs are only deceivingly similar. María (habla conmigo) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, phew. You had me scraching my head there. Plasticup T/C 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry! Damn my eyes... María (habla conmigo) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is yet another comprehensive meteorogical article. Great job, amd keep it up. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would never think that anything would go as deep as "Meteorological history of", and yet... Great article, meets all the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing However: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States." I have no idea what this means. Please reduce the jargon in this sentance, or add links. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two wikilinks that ought to answer your questions. Plasticup T/C 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved (or unresolved) comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeComments It's a decent start, but the prose needs lots of work. Needs a general copyedit on top of the issues I've listed.
  • As a Tropical Depression it brushed Nicaragua and spent several days in the waters off the country's coast before winding its way north into the Greater Antilles. "Tropical depression" shouldn't be capitalized. — Juliancolton 00:17, July 25, 2008 — continues after insertion below
Changed this, and the other capitalizations that you mention later on. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it performed a complicated interaction with an upper-tropospheric cyclone and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. Remove the link to Tropical storm, as it redirects to Tropical cyclone, which you've already linked once in the lead.
Agreed and done. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a few days as a very unusual hybrid tropical/subtropical system in the Gulf of Mexico, Gordon re-claimed its fully tropical form and made yet another landfall, this time across the Florida peninsula and into the Atlantic Ocean. "Fully tropical form" is awkwardly worded.
I like it, because it emphases the contrast with the hybrid system that had preceded it. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm's characteristically wandering track briefly brought it near North Carolina, but ultimately the storm headed south, weakening into a minor Tropical Storm before making its sixth and final landfall back on Florida's east coast. "Tropical Storm" shouldn't be capitalized, and remove the word "back".
Agreed and done. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Gordon was the seventh named tropical storm and third hurricane of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season. Remove the word "tropical", as any named storm is already a tropical storm.
Technically sub-tropical storms can be named, but I see your point and have made the change. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first week of November a large area of disturbed weather accumulated just north of Panama over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. "Accumulated" is a poor word choice.
Is it? That's sort of what happened. Several small and non-notable disturbances gathered together off the Panamanian coast. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tropical wave passed through the area and gave it mild convection. "Gave it" → "sparked".
I want to show that the convection came from the tropical wave. Saying "sparked" implies that it occurred somewhat spontaneously, but "gave" implies that the convection was passed from one system to the other. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, and I actually now disagree with my own alternative. There has to be a way to word it better, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "A tropical wave passed through the area and caused mild convection to form." Does that work? Or should it be clarified further, to "A tropical wave passed through the area and caused mild convection to form in the region."? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This organization, with an initial intensity of 30 mph (45 km/h), warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve. Clarify that 30 mph was it's maximum sustained wind.
Agreed and done. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spots of convection flared on the morning of November 9[4] and banding features appeared shortly thereafter even as its center made landfall on the northeastern Nicaraguan coast near Puerto Cabezas that afternoon. Run-on sentence.
Agreed and fixed. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak steering currents could not give Gordon a firm movement[7] and it meandered north-northeast in the presence of mild west-southwesterly wind shear,[8][9][1] unable to strengthen under the adverse conditions. Keep a block of references in numerical order.
Really? I have never heard of this, but I'll make the change. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a (fairly useless) WP:MOS guideline. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I have gone through it and found a couple more citations that needed straightening. They should all be in order now. Plasticup T/C 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the warm waters, Gordon did not strengthen that day as strong upper-tropospheric shear retarded development,[13][14] eroded the upper level circulation, and reduced the winds to 40 mph (65 km/h). "Retarded development", while grammatically correct, could be worded better.
I like it as it is. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that becomes WP:ILIKEIT. :-) I think "Prevented development" is better, as I'm pretty sure most people associate the word "retarded" with people with learning disabilities. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe we can rob them of their narrow view and expose them to the glorious versatility of the English language. That is, after all, a hallmark of professional writing. And for the record, WP:ILIKEIT is an essay (not a policy) and is directed at AfD, not FAC. Plasticup T/C 11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that WP:ILIKEIT is directed at XfDs, but it gives the same general idea. If you like it the way it is, I cannot make you change it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like "precluded" more. :) *hides* Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • November 13 was a busy day for Tropical Storm Gordon. Unnecessary sentence.
On the contrary, I think it is vital. Prior to that section, each section represented several days of activity. I want the reader to notice that the following two paragraphs all describe events that occurred on a single day. That fact is what makes Gordon so remarkable. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "a busy day" is unencyclopedic, so you should either reword it or remove it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what it means for something to be "unencyclopedic". The sentence introduces a very important pair of paragraphs, and adds that anthropomorphic touch that people attibute to weather. "Professional writing" doesn't have to mean "boring writing". Plasticup T/C 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any means does professional writing have to mean boring writing. I just think it would make the prose sound more professional to change "busy" to "active". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of professional writing is to transfer an idea clearly and efficiently. The word "busy" elucidates my meaning as well as any other. In fact, as it is simpler and more precise than "active" I would argue that it is even better. Plasticup T/C 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerating, Gordon turned towards the northeast. Would read more smoothly as "Gordon accelerated as it turned towards the northeast."
I disagree. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, as well. Prose reads more smoothly with minimum comma usage. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One comma isn't going to hurt anyone, and good writing exhibits qualities other than "smoothness". Characteristics like an interesting variety of sentence structures can differentiate engaging prose from boring drivel. Plasticup T/C 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As Gordon began to accelerate, it turned towards the northeast, headed towards {{insert wherever it was headed}}..." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a lot of redundancy, particularly in the form of "Wind shear continued..." or "The storm continued...", mentioning the same facts two or three times.
I will look into this more closely. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its sustained winds were still only 40 mph (65 km/h), but as the system approached eastern Cuba a gust of 120 mph (192 km/h) was reported. At first, I did a double take, and I had to go check the source. Be sure to clarify that the extreme gust was from a downburst associated with a thunderstorm.
I will look into this too. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Gordon crossed eastern Cuba, the NHC determined that it became the most dominant system of these low level systems and absorbed their convections. First, this is the first mention of the NHC, so you have to give the full name. Also, I don't think "convections" is grammatically correct with the plural form.
Expanded (and linked) the National Hurricane Center, but the grammar looks sound to me. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convection refers to thunderstorm activity, not individual thunderstorms. Thus, it is already in a plural form. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, so I had to look this up. This MCAT vocab list: convection (noun: plural: convections). And wiktionary has gravitational convection (plural gravitational convections). I can't find anything totally authoritative, but it looks like the word "convections" is okay. Plasticup T/C 12:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough evidence for me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By nightfall that day Gordon had not only made two landfalls and survived interactions with three competing systems but also, in assimilating the Bahamian low, it had also gained the cool central core typical of a subtropical cyclone. Remove "it".
Again, I don't think that this change adds anything. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the prose more crisp by removing unnecessary words while having the same original meaning. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll make the change. Plasticup T/C 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deep-layered ridge continued to steer the hybrid Tropical/Subtropical Storm Gordon west-northwestward past the western Bahamas. Unneeded, as you already mentioned this fact before.
Did I? It mentions the steering of the deep-layered cyclone, the pressure gradient of the deep-layered ridge, and then the steering of the deep-layered ridge. Three effects, three sentences. Maybe I could clean up language to avoid repetition of "deep-layered", as that is a little confusing. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but yea, I think it would be good to change the wording some. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it (and added a wikilink) to avoid the confusion. Plasticup T/C 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steering currents remained weak[40][41] giving the storm a chance to full re-develop its deep convection while immobile at sea.[42][41][1] Again, keep references in numerical order.
Again, I don't really understand it but I have made the change. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eastward component of the storm's movement increased, and Gordon moved northeastward onto the Florida peninsula at a healthy 10 mph (17 km/h). "Peninsula" is capitalized. Also, remove "a healthy".
Done. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on November 17, back over the open ocean, the storm's central pressure began to fall.[47] Improved organization was not apparent[47] and wind shear was biting into the core of the deep convection[48] when, on November 17, Gordon suddenly spawned 75 mph (120 km/h) winds and was upgraded to a Category 1 hurricane. "biting into the core" is unencyclopedic language. Also, the storm doesn't "spawn" 75 mph winds, but rather generates them. Despite sounding the same, they are slightly different,
There is no such thing as "unencyclopedic" language. I tried to use colorful descriptions that prevent the reader from falling asleep, but that does not make the work less "encyclopedic" than the dreadfully boring articles that constitute the majority of our current FA collection. "Spawn" is an anthropomorphic version of "generated". That is the only difference, and it is not accidental. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. There is most certainly such a thing as language that is not suitable for an encyclopedia, which strives for professional prose. Additionally, wind shear doesn't bite into the inner core, but rather shears it apart from the convection, so that is factually inaccurate. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about the wind shear - biting was factually inaccurate. I have changed the sentence to better reflect the "shearing" force that was actually occurring. Plasticup T/C 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
  • In its brush with the mid-Atlantic states, Gordon dropped 2–5 in (5–13 cm) on the continent with a maximum of 5.25 in (13.3 cm) recorded at Norfolk, Virginia.In its brush with the mid-Atlantic states, Gordon dropped 2–5 in (5–13 cm) on the continent with a maximum of 5.25 in (13.3 cm) recorded at Norfolk, Virginia. The Mid-Atlantic isn't a continent...
Heh, yeah. It made sense in my head but I can see how most people would read it that way. Fixed. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong upper-level winds sprung up and sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection. "Sprung up" is more unencyclopedic language.
See above, re anthropomorphisms Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between its three landfalls, Hurricane Gordon dumped 5–10 in (13–25 cm) of rain on Florida, with a station at Cooperstown recording 16.1 in (40.9 cm). Wait, didn't it make six landfalls? You should say "Between its three landfalls in Florida, Hurricane Gordon dumped between 5–10 in (13–25 cm) of rain in the state..."
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really like to see more than a couple sentences between final landfall on Florida and dissipation.
I'll try to add something about rainfall, but there's not much to tell. The system was just a nondescript low at that point. It really burnt itself out on the lead up to it's sixth landfall. Plasticup T/C 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose I'm seeing improvement, but I just read through it closely, and there are still too many prose issues. Some more examples:
  • The thirteen-day meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon was erratic, persistent, and highly unusual. "Thirteen" → "13". — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I think that WP:MOSNUM#Numbers casts this as a choice, but if I am misreading MOSNUM I won't mind changing it. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a tropical depression it brushed Nicaragua and spent several days in the waters off the country's coast before winding its way north into the Greater Antilles. Run-on-like.
Gotcha. Fixed. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba, while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola. I don't like the presence of the word "here", as the previous sentence mentions nothing of the storm's location. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
It now reads Executing a slow turn to the north and then the northwest, Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it performed a complicated interaction with an upper-tropospheric cyclone and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. Why not just "it interacted with an upper-level tropospheric cyclone..."? "Preformed an interaction" sounds awkwardly worded. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I wanted to work in the word "complicated", but I can leave that for the full explanation in the body of the article. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead mentions the name "Gordon" four times. Remember, it's a storm, not a person. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
It also mentions "storm" twice, "system" once, and "hurricane" once. I have changed one of the "Gordon"s to "the storm", but I don't think that the reader is in any danger of forgetting. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of its landfalls were in the U.S. state of Florida. Link U.S. State and Florida. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Done. I had wikilinked Florida somewhere else (I remember because I ended up reading the whole Florida article), but it must have come out in one of the revisions. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first week of November a large area of disturbed weather accumulated just north of Panama over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. "Accumulated" is still a poor word choice, but as I know you are inclined to keep it as it is, I will not fuss over it.
  • Moving northwest, the storm began a very slow strengthening pattern[1] and developed a favorable upper outflow. Remove "a".
Yep. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article, I see run-on sentences, and just plain sentences with no commas where needed.
  • Eventually a trough prodded Gordon to the north-northeast at 8 mph (13 km/h),[11] and it strengthened slightly to 45 mph (75 km/h) as it moved through the central Caribbean Sea. It's not necessary to mention the exact winds, as it only increased by 5 mph. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Okay, I have done this but let me explain the problem. The actual strengthening was 5 knots. If I convert that to mph and km/h I get 5.8 mph and 9.3 km/h. If I round to the integer I get 6 mph and 9 km/h, which is deceptive because the NHC measures wind strengths to the nearest 5 knots. So maybe I should round to the nearest 5? But then I would be saying strengthened by 5 mph (10 km/h), when anyone who knows anything about mi vs km knows that 5 mph is not the same as 10 km/h. Then it looks like I have made an error. So yeah, I thought about this during the original draft, but I'll defer to your suggestion. Current revision reads: strengthened by 6 mph (9 km/h) Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the warm waters, Gordon did not strengthen that day as strong upper-tropospheric shear retarded development,[13][14] eroded the upper level circulation, and reduced the winds to 40 mph (65 km/h). Why not just "Gordon failed to strengthen that day"? — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Failed implies intent. Also, you lose a whole load of information. There were warm waters, which usually strengthen a tropical system, and there was wind shear, which weakens tropical systems. These factors were in conflict, and the result was very slight weakening. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Through the Greater Antilles" section should be named simple "Greater Antilles". — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
The article is written as a narrative. It tells a story. This story progresses. Movement is one of the story's key elements, and I don't have a problem with it being reflected in the section heading. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • November 13 was a busy day for Tropical Storm Gordon. I'm afraid I still greatly dislike that sentence. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I am not being facetious when I say that it is one of my favorite sentences. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While possible, this view was never accepted by the official hurricane summaries. What official hurricane summaries" — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
The two summaries linked immediately after the full stop: "Preliminary Report Hurricane Gordon 8-21 November 1994" and "Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1994". Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large ridge of high pressure near the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast increased the pressure gradient around the storm, so although its sub-tropical elements (namely a lack of deep convection) precluded a core of strong winds immediately around the storm's nucleus, strong winds were supported well outside the storm's circulatory center. First, "Mid-Atlantic" is capitalized. Second, a storm does not have a nucleus... — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Agreed on the capitalization, but the word nucleus simply means "center". I use the word "center" later in the same sentence, and needed a synonym. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could use "middle", "core", "eye", or even "midpoint". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Core" is already used in that sentence and the hurricane did not have an eye. "Middle" and "midpoint" are a bit awkward and I don't think that either of them are as precise as "nucleus". And in the end, these are synonyms. What is wrong with "nucleus"? Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nucleus" is a term that I have only heard used for describing a component to a cell. I just looked it up, and the only way it relates to meteorology is being a particle on which water vapor molecules accumulate in free air to form a droplet or ice crystal.. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nucleus' primary meaning perfectly captures what I was trying to say: 1. a central part about which other parts are grouped or gathered; core Plasticup T/C 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, nucleus is appropriate in this context. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when these are done, and I'll be back for more examples. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that there were a lot of run-on sentences. I have read through and chopped up a couple, but if you want to give me specific examples I would be grateful. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, here's some more examples of run-on sentences:
  • Spots of convection flared on the morning of November 9[4] and banding features appeared shortly thereafter even as its center made landfall on the northeastern Nicaraguan coast near Puerto Cabezas.
It is a long sentence, not a run-on sentence. Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have had this disagreement before. Oh well. Plasticup T/C 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States.
Not a run-on sentence. Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but it would benefit from having a comma after the word "storm". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it absurdly choppy. Plasticup T/C 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The way I would have modified it is by adding a comma or a period, or flat-out rewriting it: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and stopped affecting the system. Its influence was replaced by that of a mid-tropospheric ridge located over the eastern United States." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurricane's loop continued and as it moved to a west-northwesterly heading Gordon briefly threatened North Carolina's Outer Banks[53] before stalling offshore once again. Not really a run-on, but could use a comma.
Okay, I have added one. Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong upper-level winds battered the storm from the northwest and sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection.
Not a run-on sentence. Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems close enough to me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have broken it up as so: Strong upper-level winds battered the storm from the northwest. They sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection. It is now fit for simple.wikipedia.com. Plasticup T/C 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The high pressure system over the continent continued pulling the depression west[63][64] until it made its final landfall near Cape Canaveral that night with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h). Could also use a comma. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... where? This is a perfectly normal sentence. I honestly see nothing wrong with it. Plasticup T/C 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A comma right before refs 63 and 64 would help. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is simple. "X happened until Y". No need for a comma whatsoever. This is why God gave us conjunctions. Plasticup T/C 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 31 had an accesscate instead of an accessdate. That is fixed. The pdf that you linked took me a while to find because it is transcluded from Template:Wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_Haiti. I am fixing that now. I also noticed that none of the pdf references have format=pdf in the citations, so I'll be fixing that too. Plasticup T/C 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template citations are fixed and the pdfs are marked. Plasticup T/C 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose 1a -

  • Opening sentence is unnecessarily awkward - the whole title of the article need not be written out and bolded. Just "Hurricane Gordon, which lasted thirteen days, was erratic, etc. etc." would be fine. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I really don't think that the opening is awkward, and neither did the FAC reviewers of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, nor Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, all of which achieved FA status with similar openings. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do. Just because other articles have passed with subpar opening sentences doesn't mean every article should. If you like, you can ask a few other prose reviewers on FAC for their opinion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, sure. I really like the lead as it is now and am going to stand by it. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm going to stand by my oppose unless you agree to change the opening sentence - the opening sentence needs to be grammatically immaculate because it's all most people will read of the article; this one is far from that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A comma after two words is pretty much the definition of awkward. The opening sentence, as it is now, it straightforward and dead simple. The subject is clear and the only commas separate items of a list. Your alternative introduces an unnecessary subordinate clause after just two words. Plasticup T/C 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A subordinate clause after two words is better than a grammatically incorrect sentence. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? How is it grammatically incorrect? Plasticup T/C 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used grammatically incorrect, but it's confusing and makes little sense. You have subjects mixed up - Hurricane Gordon was erratic, inconsistent, etc., not its history. The current version, however, implies the latter as opposed to the former. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point. But I don't want to start the article by talking about Hurricane Gordon in general - I want it to be clear that this article is about the hurricane's meteorology. Any suggestions there? Plasticup T/C 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the version I just posted? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Plasticup T/C 10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<- outdent) Perfect. Striking my oppose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Tropical" in "Tropical depression" capitalised? This kind of thing happens throughout the article. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I count one instance of this. It was in the lead and I have fixed it. The phrase "Tropical Storm Gordon" earns a capitalization because it is a proper noun, much like New York City is not New York city. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of places where you write "Tropical Storm" without the "Gordon". Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be difficult, but I just did a case-sensitive search of the article, and every instance of "Tropical Storm" is followed by "Gordon". Maybe I fixed them while making another edit, but in any event I hope that this issue is resolved. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rechecking, it appears that that's the case. Never mind. I'll respond to the other point soon after another runthrough of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to Category 1 Hurricane Gordon." - why not just "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to [the status of] a Category 1 Hurricane?" - words in brackets are optional. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I'll have a read through for some of these. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm's characteristically wandering track" - why not just "The storm's characteristic wandering"? — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
That would work too. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to write it - is yours better than the existing one? Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always try to make articles a concise as possible - the former method of expressing it seems unnecessarily redundant and lengthy to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way on this one, so I made the change. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve." - unnecessarily awkward, similar to the bullet two above this one. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I have changed it to "was designated Tropical Depression Twelve" Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many of the faults demonstrated in the last and third to last points. The unneeded capitalisation is also an issue (albeit a minor one), and the rest of the prose has some other mistakes as well. Give the prose a cleanup and I'll be happy to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are still many prose issues, some of which are not being addressed. I suggest getting some fresh eyes in to look at the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse has given it a thorough copyedit. Personally I am not a fan of many of the changes, but let me know what you think. Plasticup T/C 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tad better, but I can not lift my oppose with the unresolved issues, namely the opening sentence to the November 13 segment. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but help me out for a minute. Is your argument that the sentence is unclear? Does it not transfer its intended meaning? Because I think that the sentence is perfectly clear. So your argument must be that the meaning of the sentence is not one worthy of being transmitted. Here again I am perplexed - it is a brief introduction to two very important paragraphs. Plasticup T/C 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned that the sentence doesn't transfer its intended meaning—it is perfectly clear. I just believe that it is unnecessary, because the reader can determine for themselves that November 13 was indeed a busy day because of the numerous notable events in the storm's history. It just adds more text for a reader to progress through, without adding any meaningful context to the prose. Even though I am in favor of having the sentence removed altogether, if it were to stay, a substantial improvement would be to replace the word "busy" with "active". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence (it takes a whole second to read—it's not going to bore anyone into not reading the article), as it is simply stylistic flair. However, I changed it anyways. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped copy editing because you were displeased. There are still changes I would make if it were up to me. Why don't you ask User talk:Juliancolton to suggest a replacement sentence for the one he dislikes? Besides following User:Tony1's rules and other rules of copy editing, much is a matter of taste. If User talk:Juliancolton says that he finds the sentence troublesome, then it seems to me you must take him at his word. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton, I agree with your comments concerning the sentence. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that sentence in particular so much as it was the stripping of every bit of creativity in the name of "encyclopedic"-ism. But I'll concede this point if it makes everyone feel better. Beware, my future FACs will all have interesting and professional language as well. ;-) Champions of the bland be on your guard! Plasticup T/C 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See "Brilliant prose" on WikiSpeak. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defended your use of language in one of your past "Hurricane" articles because there it served to enhance the article. That is not the case here. The use of "busy" in the first sentence was not "engaging prose" but more like Time magazine writing, sorry to say. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The majority of my issues have been addressed, and the few that remain are not significant enough for me to withhold a support. All in all, well done, but some more copyediting would be nice. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, no image review? Can you locate someone to check them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images are good, as they are all either self-made or in the public domain as a work of the Federal Government. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Meteorological_history_of_Hurricane_Gordon_(1994)&oldid=1136458254"