Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Gert (1993)/archive1

Hurricane Gert (1993)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done some major work to it and believe it is almost ready for FAC. The article is a cohesive and complete account of the subject at matter, with a good balance of reliable English and Spanish sources. I'll admit that although the information is thorough, the prose might be a bit neglected in some areas. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Auree ★ 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'm currently providing feedback via IRC. HurricaneFan25 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Other feedback:

• "Gert continued to produce moderate gales along its path through the country." - just sounds a bit strange, no big deal here
• "Off the coast near Big Corn Island, the rough surf and winds destroyed nine fishing boats" - Remove "the" before "rough"
• "...causing additional damage and disrupting transport." - Change that to "transportation systems" or something like that
• "...plantations across low-lying areas, such as banana, sugar and citrus." - Use "including" instead of "such as" — doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me
• "In at least one community, heavy downpours triggered damaging mudslides along a major highway." - using "at least" is awkward - if you don't have confirmation of any other communities being affected, remove that "at least" or reword it
• "Urban areas of Madero and Altamira were also hard hit by the flooding." - "hit hard" doesn't sound encyclopedic, IMO
• "...and increased as the flooding persisted in the following weeks." Remove "the" before "flooding" - sounds just a bit strange
• "...this included 41,250 kilograms of food, 1422 mattresses, and 1350 blankets." - you used a comma the first time, why not the following instances?
• "In its wake, largely disrupted road network across the affected regions impacted the..." - you need a "the" before "largely"

Addressed these points except for "hard hit" (I don't know what I could use instead) and "increased as the flooding persisted in the following weeks," since the flooding is already mentioned in preceding sentences. Thanks for the review Auree ★ 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Given the length of the article, I feel a 3rd paragraph in the lede would be nice, although not absolutely necessary.
• " and once again reorganized into a tropical storm" - there is a redundancy there. Gert reached TS status only once before, so "once again reorganized" imply it attained TS status for a third time.
• "Sustaining winds of 100 mph (165 km/h)" - I found that a bit awkward, since I'm used to reading "sustained winds" but not the gerund form. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it felt weird.
• "Due to Gert's broad circulation, heavy rains fell over large areas along its path through Central America." - did the rains weigh a lot? (heavy) Also, the "large areas" seems out of place. Why not something simpler like "The large circulation of Gert produced widespread precipitation across Central America"? You can get into the details later on rainfall totals, which would help expand the lede.

• "Heavy" is a very acceptable term to describe rainfall intensity, lol. I tweaked it a bit, though. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "combined with saturated soil due to previous tropical systems" - the article only mentions Bret. Was there another tropical system that contributed to the flooding?
• "caused heavy flooding of property and crop" - I think another word other than "heavy" would be appropriate here. Also, why is "crop" singular?
• "Following the overflow of several major rivers, deep flood waters submerged extensive parts of Veracruz and Tamaulipas" - I believe "flood" and "waters" should be one word, but I'm not positive.

• I'm not sure either. I remember being told to keep them separate in a previous review, and spell-check also prefers them being separate words. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The heaviest rains occurred further inland over the mountainous region of San Luis Potosí, however, where a record 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured." - the "however" isn't needed. Also, you don't say what sort of record that total is. Highest total in one city? Something like that?

• I mean the highest total for the storm overall. Not sure how else to put it without making the sentence bloated. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wait, did the storm total set a record or not? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "road networking" feels sort of out of place (specifically the networking). I don't think it should have the "ing" on there.
• " A large portion of the system subsequently moved inland along the northern coast of South America for several hours" - something happening for only a few hours seems out of place. Also, the article says something happened on the 11th, and then it emerged into the Caribbean on the 13th, so that implies two days. Be sure to check that out.
• "Based on this and the presence of a surface circulation, it was reanalyzed as a tropical depression" - I think "classified" would be better than "reanalyzed", as the latter implies something different.
• "about 105 mi (165 km) north of Panama" - Panama is a big country, and yet that measurement is pretty specific. Where in Panama?
• "Since its cloud pattern continued to organize, it was upgraded to a tropical storm on September 15 and received the name Gert" - technically, it was upgraded to a tropical storm due to estimates that the winds had increased. It could have remained a tropical depression if they didn't think the winds increased. Also, it'd be helpful to say who upgraded (AKA avoid passive voice). Alternatively, you could say who classified it as a TD in the previous paragraph.
• How strong was Gert at Bluefields landfall? I see you mentioned it in the impact, but that should be in the MH.
• " Interaction with land impeded further development, and Gert later weakened back to a tropical depression." - when?
• "This allowed Gert to retain its status" - what status? As a tropical cyclone, status as a tropical depression (which isn't that impressive, Mitch 98 did the same thing)

• Changed to "This allowed Gert to remain a tropical cyclone," and it is impressive, especially when the NHC repeatedly forecast dissipation (which also now mentioned in the article). Btw, Mitch briefly lost its status, and it was a powerful hurricane at landfall. Gert was already a minimal tropical cyclone. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that the discussions mention that the circulation became broad over land, so you might want to mention that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• What caused Gert's motion to go to the northwest like that? And while I'm thinking about it, what sort of conditions were favorable enough that it could have intensified into a TS the first and second time.

• N/A Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Did Gert's structure change while it was over land the first two times? Did the convection decrease over the center, and did the circulation ever get ragged?
• Was it only warm waters that allowed Gert to intensify to a hurricane in the BoC?

• The only discussion mentioning something other the waters is discussion number 17, which mentions it being a reason for restrengthening to a tropical storm. I think the mention of weak shear was too far away from it reaching hurricane status and don't feel all too comfortable using it, but I did anyway. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Its forward motion had slowed slightly" - why?
• "allowing the hurricane more time to organize over favorable warm sea surface temperatures" - you already mentioned warm waters two sentences prior
• "Gert accordingly attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, reaching winds of near 100 mph (155 km/h)." - few problems. Why "accordingly?" Oh what basis was that peak intensity estimate? (recon, buoy, Dvorak?) Finally, the km/h estimate here is different from the infobox.

• I refer thee to this. The accordingly comes from the TCR's usage of "consequently," so I'll change it to that. There's no mention of how the wind speeds were deduced. The discs only mention recon reporting a peak intensity of 80 kt, so that's inaccurate too. I can mention the minimum pressure, but that wouldn't fix the wind deduction issue. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Around 2100 UTC, Gert made a final landfall on the coast of Mexico at peak intensity, with its eye moving westward just north of Tuxpan, Veracruz." - what day did that happen? And when did the eye form? You never mentioned it earlier.

• Neither did the NHC :P Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why did Gert accelerate over Mexico?

• N/A Auree ★ 00:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "It continued a west to west-northwestward motion for a couple of days" - how many? "couple of" is a weasel word.
• "and the system was declassified as a tropical cyclone on September 26" - did the circulation dissipate, or was it merely a remnant low?
• "After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert for coastal regions on September 14, although it was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast by the following day." - authorities confirmed that the TD developed? Also, using the passive voice means that "authorities" were upgraded to a TS warning. Instead of although, I would use "which was upgraded"

• Yes, they did. And I tweaked it per your suggestion. Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• How many people in Mexico were evacuated?

• No idea. Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Although Gert's center remained offshore, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across Costa Rica." - well, the center did move onshore, just not in Costa Rica. I would clarify that (Although the storm did not strike the country - something like that)
• Do you know where the station recorded 13 inches of rain?
• "Geologically, the hardest-hit regions consist of sedimentary layers with poor hydraulic conductivity, and are therefore prone to soil saturation." - why the present tense in the first part? And is there any chance you could explain the "poor hydraulic conductivity"?

• I did it because those regions and their characteristics still exist to this day. Also, I'll try... Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The initial rains caused a significant water rise in many rivers, further exacerbating the flood threat." - doesn't water rise mean flooding?

• It just means the water level in a river rises... that doesn't directly mean it overflows. Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The floods destroyed about 500 acres (2.0 km2) of banana plantain" - banana and plantain are two different, albeit similar fruits. At least, I thought so.
• "In addition, the Manuel Antonio National Park suffered great destruction from high winds" - could you find a different wording other than "suffered great destruction"? That same phrase is in the caption of the image on the left, and it feels weird for them to be identical.
• I wouldn't call 27 destroyed houses "significant property damage" (ditto with the low damage figure). Also, when you say ($3.1 million), you should clarify USD, since other currencies use $.

• Surely nearly 700 damaged homes is at least considerable, and $3.1 million isn't all that low for that region during that time. Clarified the other part though. Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "A river adjacent to Rama crested at as much as 32 ft (10 m) above its normal stage" - try rewording that a bit
• " affecting up to 12 municipalities" - can't you get an actual number? Also, that seems like a small number of municipalities to be affected by flooding.
• "the flooding victimized 24,000 people" - victimized how? Prejudice? Sexual harassment?
• "Following the destruction of its sole water reservoir, much of the city suffered potable water shortages for months in its wake." - why isn't that aftermath?

• I was going to do that, just forgot to XD Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "affected up to 67,447 people, of which" - it should be "of whom" since they're people.

• Is "of whom" really grammatically correct? Auree ★ 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• " although unofficial sources put the death toll for the country as high as over 100 deaths" - over 100 deaths could be 7 billion, so you should indicate whatever is the highest death toll estimate.
• " officials reported up to 12 destroyed homes and five deaths in its wake" - you should either spell out both numbers or make them both integers, per WP:MOSNUM.
• "Torrential rains from Gert affected up to 20,000 people in Guatemala" - up to 20,000 could be only 5 people. What is the estimate for how people were affected?
• " It further caused significant agricultural losses across the country" - that reads a bit awkward. "further caused", IDK, I wasn't a fan.
• " Just offshore, a weather station on Hunting Caye recorded up to 9.5 in (241 mm) of precipitation during the event" - see earlier about "up to"
• "Quickly picking up Category 2-force winds over the warm gulf waters, Gert made landfall along the northeastern coast of Mexico as a large and powerful hurricane" - that's redundant. We already read that in the lede and the MH.
• "catastrophic flooding washed over extensive areas in eastern Mexico" - I think you could find a better word for "washed over".
• "Half of Tampico was inundated by flood waters and mud, demolishing structures and roads and forcing 200,000 residents to evacuate" - try and avoid the passive voice here.
• "where up to 35 rivers burst their banks" - as before
• "leaving 361 communities isolated from the rest of the world" - the latter portion isn't necessary, as "isolated" implies that.
• You should clarify USD whenever you use the $
• "41,250 kilograms of food" - convert please

• To what? :S

• Pounds :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Over $300,000 in aid was donated by the federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain combined" - that'd probably be better written in active voice.
• "the president of Honduras surveyed the affected region by helicopter" - only one region?

That's it. Nice work on the article overall. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive review; I was honestly expecting much more problems! If I didn't reply to a point it means it's addressed, and if I did it means I disagree or can't/don't know how to fix it. Auree ★ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)