Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [1].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}[reply]

This article is about the meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. This is one of many articles written about the powerful storm that stalled over the Bahamas at peak intensity and made at least eight total landfalls. I have renominated it per the request of a few project members. NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images are all correctly licensed and appropriately sourced.
  • There are some issues with image layout. The first image sandwiches with the infobox, and the image captioned "Dorian over Grand Bahama on September 2 as viewed from the International Space Station" breaks the next section header for me. buidhe 04:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: This likely means that your browser's width is significantly larger than mine. NoahTalk 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but featured articles should also follow the MOS for a variety of reasonable browser settings. buidhe 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some articles won't have leads large enough to avoid "sandwiching" the infobox. I believe this article to be one of those cases because it isn't particularly large. NoahTalk 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JavaHurricane[edit]

Doing. JavaHurricane 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having sorted out things, I am doing the review now. Sorry for the delay. JavaHurricane 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With little change in intensity, Dorian made landfall over Barbados [...]". No reason to mention "with little change in intensity" as it has been mentioned previously that the intensification trend had ceased.
  • It said "all but ceased" as the intensification that did occur was very slow and only involved a pressure drop of a few mbar. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time, composite radar showed that the system lacked a strong inner core." Add bolded.
  • The caption in the PR/VI image mentions "Tropical Storm Dorian" when in fact Dorian became a hurricane at 1530Z (which is almost the same time).
  • Unfortunately it is OR to assume it was a hurricane at that time even though we know it was. The NHC said 15:30 UTC, so that means we can't say it was a hurricane at 15:29:59 or before without adding OR. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mountainous terrain of the island disrupted the low-levels of the system." I'd use "low-level circulation" here, the formal term.
  • "landfalls in the Bahamas" and not "over" as there were multiple landfalls.
  • There is no need to mention that Dorian was the most powerful storm to impact the NW Bahamas as it was the strongest to ever make landfall.
  • Changed as it says in the Bahamas later in text. NoahTalk 10:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An erroneous "After" survives in the first line of the Records section.

Looks good otherwise! JavaHurricane 05:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hurricannehink[edit]

  • The lead should be split into three paragraphs, given how long the first one is. I suggest the first one stop at August 24 (formation).
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention somewhere in the lead that the storm was in the Atlantic Ocean
Just changed the mention for the season. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can notes 2 and 3 be combined? They're listed next to each other.
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dorian originated from a westward-traveling tropical wave over a thousand miles east of the Windward Islands on August 24. " - the first paragraph of MH says "however, the system organized into a tropical depression at 06:00 UTC on August 24, while approximately 805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of Barbados". I know Barbados isn't technically part of the Windwards, but this could appear contradictory to the layman.
Changed the lead to state when it became a TD and a TS. I removed that bit about the windwards. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the wave traveled westward across the low latitudes of the Atlantic, it lost most of its convection before developing into a low-pressure area on August 22." - the "as" is ambiguous here whether it means "Because" or "While". Also, did the wave really develop *into* a LPA? Or did the LPA form along the wave? From my understanding of meteorology, the wave still exists when a LPA develops along it. I could be wrong though.
Fixed and did a minor mod for the second. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2nd MH paragraph, I suggest linking "eye" on its first usage, not second
Fixed. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in the day, a NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft reported the presence of concentric eyewalls, indicating that an eyewall replacement cycle had commenced. " - I suggest re-adding the date, since it's been several paragraphs since the last mention.
Done.. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the heightened media attention, is it worth mentioning the early forecasts of Dorian's track into Florida?
I would rather leave that in Dorian's preparations since there wasn't really a "track error" and large location changes here. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Dorian cross Prince Edward Island in Canada? Not sure if you could get a source saying that, but from the track it looks like it.
This shows that Dorian moved just east of the island. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a good read, well-researched, and well-cited. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Airborne84[edit]

Did a quick run-through. Reads nicely. Will return in a bit to finish. In the meantime, only one note below:

  • In the first section after the lede, wasn't sure what "a mid- to upper-level low" was, and the average reader probably won't either. Maybe put "(cold-core cyclone)" or a similar brief explanation afterward for the first use. Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Airborne84: Thanks! I have added your suggestion. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a citation to this note? "A major hurricane is one that ranks at Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale." Should be straightforward and it's probably available on various articles here already.
  • You use spaced en dashes vs unspaced em dashes to set off phrases in the article. Nothing wrong with that, but with varying browser widths among readers, a possibility exists that an en dash will appear at the beginning of a line, which WP:DASH prefers to avoid. I recommend replacing your normal spaced en dashes with the non-breaking en dash template {{snd}} or other options at WP:DASH throughout. I did a couple in the second paragraph of the lede as examples. Will look the same in the final markup, but prevent the potential catastrophe of en dashes at the beginning of lines. :)
The good news is with that level of detail I don't have much left for you as far as comments for the article. Airborne84 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Airborne84: I think I took care of the citation and all the dashes that needed to be addressed. NoahTalk 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I won't second-guess Buidhe on the images, but the sources look good and the prose reads well. I also like the records section that appears to be above and beyond that of other FAs of this type. Well done. Airborne84 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list to get another review? I know two usually isn't enough. I put in a request for a source review a while ago as well. NoahTalk 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Adding this to the urgents list... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it needs a source review... like so many others... --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Did something happen? I notice an unusually large backlog. NoahTalk 00:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea but I may have to return to source reviews, which will slow down promotions ... which isn't good.. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: The page really exploded since you commented here... and the list of needed SRs was obliterated. NoahTalk 15:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review (Support)[edit]

Reviewing June 22 version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed everything above this comment. NoahTalk 19:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP work needed, sample left, so we don't read Category
    5 and Category
    3 and Category
    4. It is OK to use NBSPs within wikilinks. You don't need NBSPs if the term occurs in a table or at the beginning of a sentence where it won't linebreak anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noah, you did more NBSPing than I care about ... the way I see it, Wikipedia software should solve the dates and not expect us to! I only asked for after Category, but you went all the way ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Table in the Records section, could you add a footnote explaining that the quotes are because Hurricanes before Year X (?) were not named ?
  • I messed around with Template:Hurricane Dorian related to try to reduce the MOS:SANDWICH in the first section, resulting from the length of the infobox. What I did might not be optimal (you will want to change surely), but the problem needs to be addressed. I checked several computer/browser configurations, and my iPad is fine, but on others, the infobox is causing sandwiching with the first image in the first section. Template:Tourette syndrome might give you some configuration ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would moving the images down to the second paragraph be a possible fix to this problem? NoahTalk
  • Yes, that would work ... I was just trying to help you find a solution to the broader problem, as this often happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, basics out of the way, looking now at prose:

  • The system organized into a tropical depression and later a tropical storm, both on August 24. Is it unusual for a storm to do both in one day? Should anything be said about that?
  • Not really unusual at all. It happens frequently if conditions are favorable. Some storms skip the depression phase altogether. The most recent example of this is the currently active TS Fay. NoahTalk 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mountains of St. Lucia seriously disrupted Dorian's structure and caused the system's center to reform north of its previous location. I understand what this is saying, but am uncomfortable with mountains doing something active, noun-verb. How about ... Dorian's structure was seriously disrupted after encountering the mountains of St. Lucia, causing the system's center to reform north of its previous location"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has "relaxing shear", while vertical wind shear is linked later in the article. Are they the same thing? Link on first occurrence ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified it was relaxing wind shear... Also, wind shear is linked at the start of that paragraph in the lead. NoahTalk 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saffir–Simpson scale is not linked in the lead, but is linked later in the article-- link on first occurrence (yes, I realize it is linked in the infobox, but not all readers look at infobox, would prefer link in text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterward, Dorian weakened steadily as it slowed nearly to a standstill on September 2, crossing Grand Bahama while doing so. Again, I see what it's saying, but this sentence is weird. On the one hand, slowed nearly to a standstill, but on the other hand, not standing still as it crossed the Grand Bahama. Some re-jigging to remove the apparent contradiction? I understand they are not mutually exclusive, but sentence could still confuse the general reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... was absorbed by a larger extratropical cyclone on September 9 ... do those have names? (Dumb question, but the layreader may think they should or do ?) Or add the word "unnamed" so we don't wonder?
  • Extratropical cyclones occur all the time across the world and are unnamed spare the European wind storms and the occasional winter nor'easter (the latter is unofficially named). NoahTalk 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like stadium effect should be briefly defined here, so we don't have to click out to know what it is ... where the clouds of the eyewall curve outward from the surface with height.
  • Gave a brief explanation. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessary to use "respectively", which twists the reader? How about instead recasting the sentence, easier to read ...
In the United States Virgin Islands, it made landfall over St. Croix at 15:30 UTC and St. Thomas at 18:00 UTC.
  • It would then cause issues with the part about it strengthening into a Cat 1 storm at the same time. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it broke numerous intensity records ... is this not worthy of mention in the lead? and slow forward motion near the Bahamas also set several records ...
  • Added this in as the second sentence. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Dorian, 2019 became the fourth consecutive year – the most ever – to produce at least one Category 5 hurricane ... OK, again, I can stop and re-read and figure out what the sentence is saying, but on first quick pass, I go ... most ever what ... then realize, most years consecutively ... not sure if you can find a way to re-cast that for smoother reading. How to do it escapes me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a note for the one part. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all ... the writing is competent and I like how the language is varied. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose adjustments are excellent, and you have a fine way with words, Noah ... I know it can be hard to vary the wording in hurricane articles, and I think you've done a nice job, and have expeditiously addressed all my queries. I rarely support articles, particularly if I don't know the topic well, but I find it quite disturbing that a well prepared and FAC-ready article had to sit here for two months without reviewers engaging, so in compensation for whatever is causing other reviewers to avoid hurricanes, you have my SUPPORT. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, SandyGeorgia! NoahTalk 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done[edit]

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example that it was the fourth named storm of the season
  • The article relies quite heavily on contemporary NHC reports, but there is scientific literature discussing the storm's meteorological impact (eg)
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • What are you meaning by this? NoahTalk 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the citations are formatted using a template - eg {{cite web}} - but then in Records there's at least one that isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be fixed. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn46 is missing publication date. Ditto FN47, check others. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed several. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: as I understand the Hurricane article structure, impact is covered in a different article. I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which article? I would anticipate that meteorology-specific impact could appropriately be included here... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read, the meteorological impact causes effects that are felt elsewhere. In this case, the Gulf Stream flow reduction led to increased coastal sea levels. It would be best to discuss this either on the main article and/or the effects of Dorian in X (wherever it caused the sea level increase). The sea level increase caused by the disruption of the Gulf Stream may have had some impact on land (low-lying for example), sealife, beaches, etc.. I'm just pointing out examples of possibilites. NoahTalk 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe everything has either been fixed or addressed. NoahTalk 15:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral by CPA-5[edit]

I just was looking here around and found this article. Nothing special like with other hurricane articles before I wanted to have a review before it closes. I then found something strange. Why is this written in American English? The Hurricane Dorian was the worst hurricane the Bahamas ever had. There's no policy (as far as I'm familiar with) about what to do with multi-English speaking countries unless Commonwealth countries but that's not the case. Per MOS:TIES "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." 74 people died and 245 were missing in that country while the US had only 10 deads and none missing? And if we look at the costs then we get this the Bahamas got $3.4 billion while the US had only ≥$1.2 billion. If I look at the numbers and the sentence "Hurricane Dorian was the strongest hurricane to affect the Bahamas on record, causing catastrophic damage in the Abaco Islands and Grand Bahama in early September 2019." in the article then I have the feeling that the Bahamas has a "closer tie" then the US had in this event. I believe it should be written in Commonwealth English. I disagree to see the usage of American English in this article without a good reason. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: It's not like the USA did not get any impacts either and as bad as Dorian was in the Bahamas, the American impact was also significant. Plus, the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center, the NHC, speaks in American English and this article is emphatically not about the impacts the storm had, but its history, which was documented primarily by the (American) NHC. TIES is not applicable here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: This is just the meteorological article. The ties for it would have to go to the United States since the National Hurricane Center is the one reporting on the storm. I don't disagree that Commonwealth English should be used, but it belongs in the Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas and possibly the Caribbean one too rather than here. NoahTalk 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm okay then but does the NHC use MM/DD/YYYY or like the military and some other US departments DD/MM/YYYY? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NHC uses MM/DD/YYYY for their public watches and warnings, but use DD/MM/YYYY internally. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • at 18:00 UTC after developing a 10 mi (15 km) wide --> "at 18:00 UTC after developing a 10-mile (15 km) wide"
  • Done since it is an adjective. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Windward islands?
  • 805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of Barbados --> "805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of the island of Barbados"
  • Dorian briefly developed a 10 mi (15 km) wide eye --> "Dorian briefly developed a 10-mile (15 km) wide eye"
  • located to the north of Hispaniola --> "located to the north of the island of Hispaniola"
  • Dorian's structure began to improve on August 28 --> "Dorian's structure began to improve on that same day"
  • and sea surface temperatures of 29 °C (84 °F) Thought that this article was written in American English?
  • Must have forgotten to add the disp=flip here. Scientists only use degrees C and Kelvin for their measurements. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe remove celsius this sentence reapets the conversion from the this sentence "temperatures near or over 84 °F (29 °C)" before. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: The first one was discussing a forecast of temperatures NEAR or ABOVE that value while the one in the other section shows that the forecast checked out and that the temperatures were at 29C (not near or above). NoahTalk 22:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on August 30 about 445 mi (715 km) east --> "on August 30 about 445 miles (715 km) east"
  • No reason to bust the abbreviation here as it conforms with other articles. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • brought an estimated 3.0 ft (0.91 m) of rain Round the nought here.
  • Added sigfig=1 so it removes the extra .01 meters. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • towards the eastern coast of the United States Per MOS:OVERLINK the US is too common to link.
  • its secondary peak intensity as a 115 mph (185 km/h) Category 3 Compound adjective should be fully written with hyphens which means it should be this "its secondary peak intensity as a 115-mile-per-hour (185 km/h) Category 3"
  • made landfall near Sambro Creek in Nova Scotia, Canada Per MOS:OVERLINK major geographic regions shouldn't be linked so no link for Canada needed.
  • The Bahamas is overlinked.
  • rounded to the nearest 5 units (knots, miles, or kilometers) In note 2: per MOS:OVERLINK everyday terms shouldn't be linked so no link for miles and kilometres.
  • The body doesn't say southern Greenland?
  • I guess that was a remnant from before the NHC trimmed the extratropical portion of the track.. ie they determined it wasn't Dorian at that point. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid using citations in the lead even though it's not included in the body – see MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Unfortunately, that one citation is the only way to prove it was the fifth TC, fourth named storm, 2nd hu, etc.. NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: How does that look? NoahTalk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jasper Deng[edit]

There are numerous problems that must be fixed with the prose, however:

  • Generally, references to advisories need to be replaced by TCR references, which are considered more reliable
  • Unfortunately, the TCR doesn't give lots of detail while the advisory discussions help on that end. Articles like this would not get off the ground primarily using one source. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dry air and vertical wind shear." and "as a result of wind shear" – These, especially the latter, are nearly omnipresent. At the least, it should be specified what level of shear is at play here.
  • Specified the shear came from the southwest. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reorganized" – should be "reintensified", as the storm didn't really lose organization during its stall, only intensity
  • "be battered" – not the right word, choose something more academic. Also, this is not in parallelism with "interacted".
  • changed to a less strong word. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it quickly eroded because of instability in the storm's organization" – not quite, dry air is cited as the actual reason. Instability (in this sense) is another symptom of the dry air intrusion, not the root cause.
  • Clarified what direction. NoahTalk 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this, the aircraft discovered that the central pressure had fallen, but did not find any stronger winds as Dorian continued to track towards the northwest."–This is not exactly contradictory so "despite" and "but" are not good words to use. Just separate the sentence out.
  • Removed both of those words and split the winds and pressure into two sentences. NoahTalk 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This caused Dorian to track west-northwest into a highly favorable environment characterized by low wind shear, high relative humidity,[3] and sea surface temperatures of 29 °C (84 °F), then west straight towards the northwestern Bahamas." – This is awkward. Separate these sentences, because right now you're changing horses mid-sentence and back again. This isn't an idiomatic use of a complex sentence.
  • "At this time, the NHC estimated the one-minute sustained winds to have reached 180 mph (285 km/h)"–needs to be brought in line with the TCR, which brings Dorian to 155 knots 3 hours earlier (at 12z).
  • Moved this to before the recon plan sentence. NoahTalk 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a eastward-moving mid-level trough"–"a" should be "an"
  • "Despite this, the NHC opted to continue issuing advisories on the system due to the threat it posed to Atlantic Canada." – This needs to go before the sentence mentioning the ASCAT data, since the current placement makes the reader think the "despite" is saying that the NHC's decision is at odds with the ASCAT data.
  • Moved the one-sentence up. NoahTalk 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by MaranoFan[edit]

No problems I can see with the article, great prose and it was engaging throughout. Great work here! Just one minor comment, at least one repetition of intensity in the sentence "after Dorian rapidly intensified to its peak intensity, it broke numerous intensity records" can be reduced, if it is changed to "after Dorian reached peak intensity, it broke numerous intensity records". Cheers.--NØ 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @MaranoFan:[reply]

I modified it slightly. Changed the second intensity part to strength. NoahTalk 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan and Hurricane Noah: "peak intensity" is the term used in academic discussions, while "strength" is less academic. "Rapidly intensified" is also an academic term, but I'd rather it be replaced by "rapidly strengthened". But also, the RI is hardly relevant to the record itself so I recommend it just be omitted. This would allow for using a more active voice with "Dorian's peak intensity set numerous intensity records" or something similar.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NoahTalk 22:29, 16 July 2020 (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_Dorian/archive2&oldid=968702732"