Talk:Hurricane Cindy (1959)

Hurricane Cindy (1959) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Hurricane Cindy (1959) is part of the 1959 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
November 23, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
July 3, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Cindy* of 1959 subdued a drought in the Carolinas, bringing more than 9 inches (230 mm) of rain in some areas?*
Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Cindy (1959)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sup. I'll be reviewing this article during the next day or so. Auree ★ 23:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'll say that I'm quite impressed with the article. The content is good, and probably won't require much (if any) adjusting for GA status. The prose is clear and flows sensibly, with just a few rough patches here and there (specifically in the lede) that I'll try smooth out in the review.

Lede - a lot of jargon in the lede. The lede is sort of like the soft introduction course to a spicy meal—it should contain minimal technical terms, and introduce the reader to the topic in an as simple and concise manner as possible.

Convection escalated – First off, I wouldn't mention convection in the lede, since it's very jargon-esque. Secondly, I don't like the usage of "escalate" here. I'd just say something like "Its thunderstorm activity became better organized".
while the system transitioned into a warm-core low – Two things wrong here. You mention it "quickly developed into a tropical depression," which are already warm-core systems. Secondly, I really wouldn't be using high-jargon entities like tropical transitions and warm-core systems in the lede. Actually, I'd remove the whole "Convection escalated... warm-core low" part from the lede altogether.
The system intensified into a tropical storm, designated "Cindy" on July 7 → The depression intensified into Tropical Storm Cindy on July 7
In fact, I'm thinking don't mention the cut-off low in the lede, and just say "The low developed into a tropical depression on July 5 while tracking north-northeastward, and became Tropical Storm Cindy by the next day. Cindy turned westward because of a high-pressure area positioned to its north, and further intensified into a weak hurricane off the coast of the Carolinas on July 8." Something like that.
What does "landfall" mean? Can we say it moved ashore?
and quickly restrengthened to a tropical storm and its forward speed quickly increased. – Doesn't flow well.
What in the world are shortwaves? As a layman, I can click on the wikilink, but it'd bother me from reading the article as early as the lede. How about "and several other weather systems" to keep it plain and simple?
when they collided into a fallen tree – I'm guessing they were driving? If so, saying "One driver was killed" might be better.
You mention that overall damage was minimal, which is good, but you overemphasize it later on in the lede ("however, little damage, other than blabla, occurred").
As an extratropical cyclone over the Canadian Maritimes, strong winds and heavy rains occurred, sinking one ship. "After becoming extratropical over the Canadian Maritimes, the cyclone produced heavy rains and strong winds that sunk one ship."

That's it for the lede. Don't worry, the rest of the article looks much better, and I'll have less to say there :P Auree ★ 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have been addressed. HurricaneFan 25 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the impermissibly large delay. I've been feeling a bit out of it these past days, and it's been quite busy over at FAC. Auree ★ 19:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history - Watch out for technical writing.

"unmoving" → stationary?
Done. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the fracture in the cold front's associated shortwave, – way too technical and not even necessary. Revise to something like "On July 5, the front spawned a separate cut-off cold-core low off the coast."
Fixed, now. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
during the day that slowly... → "during the day, which slowly..."
Done. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convection began to increase on July 6, supported on the basis that many showers were observed to the north of the depression, assisting in the initial alteration from a cold-core low into a warm-core low. – This confused me quite a bit. Tropical depressions are warm-core, so it had to be warm-core by the time the convection increased. Overall an odd way to state the sequence of events.
The MWR said that it transitioned into a warm-core system on July 6, but HURDAT contradicts that by saying the depression formed around 12:00 UTC on July 5. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to mention the warm-core transition, then? HURDAT seems more accurate in this case, so I'd just leave it out to avoid confusion Auree ★ 20:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, but IMO this should be placed somewhere in the MH to make it clearer iff I can find a reliable source to say that, though I doubt that will occur. HurricaneFan 25 20:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is also a bit technical. Consider revising.
Reworded. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly thereafter, Cindy began to re-curve along the fall line,[4] and moved northwest as it weakened to a tropical storm. The storm made an abrupt turn toward the east-northeast during the afternoon hours of July 9 as a tropical depression over North Carolina. – You could just immediately mention the weakening to a TD. Something like "Cindy began re-curving northwestward along the fall line, and eventually weakened to a tropical depression." Gets rid of the really out-of-place "as a depression over North Carolina." (Also, "over North Carolina" should go directly after "turn toward the east-northeast".)
Fixed. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and eventually acquiring → "and eventually regained"
Done. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
assisted Cindy's maintenance of intensity → "helped Cindy maintain intensity"
Fixed. HurricaneFan 25 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Auree ★ 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another: "intensified into a tropical storm" → "intensified into Tropical Storm Cindy"? Also, there's a semi-colon instead of a comma further into that sentence.

Preparations and impact

I notice a lot of duplicate information here. You twice mention the dramatic rise of the Congaree River, as well as some rainfall/tide data. In addition, there are a few instances of misplaced commas and periods throughout the section. Try to clean up the duplicate info, and I'll pass the article. Auree ★ 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed. HurricaneFan 25 23:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like the construction "; however," a lot, which is fine, but it's all over the place in the impact section. Try mixing it up with stuff like "though," "although," and "but", though I'd personally try to limit the amount of contrast words as much as possible. Auree ★ 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked a bit of stuff; it should be fine now. HurricaneFan 25 14:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some light prose edits, and I now believe this article meets the GA criteria. Congrats!

Peak rainfall[edit]

(New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast)

Connecticut: Lake Konomoc, 3.85
Rhode Island: Greenville, 3.33
Massachusetts: Rockport 1 ESE, 2.95
Maine: Machias, 2.71
New Hampshire: Portsmouth Pease AFB, 2.36
Vermont: Whitingham 1 W, 1.15
New Jersey: Belleplain Stn Forest, 8.43
Delaware: Milford 2 SE, 6.16
Virginia: West Point 2 NW, 5.15
New York: Riverhead Research Farm, 5.02
Maryland: La Plata 1 W, 4.63
Pennsylvania: Berwick, 3.04
South Carolina: Winnsboro, 9.79
North Carolina: Henderson 2 NNW, 6.83
Georgia: Savannah USDA Plt Gd, 2.14

Todo[edit]

Schwartz — Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States (2007)
~~Longshore — Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones New Edition (1998) has nothing; try Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones New Edition (2008)~~ Consulted 2008 edition, no relevant material
Check Google Scholar

HurricaneFan 25 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]