Talk:Hurricane Olga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The fifteenth named storm, ninth and final hurricane of the 2001 season, Olga formed as a subtropical cyclone on November 24 and meandered westward where it reached hurricane status on November 26." - This seems like too many clauses in one sentence. Let me explain, you are talking about it is respect to the season, then adding when Olga formed, and then when it became a hurricane, all in one sentence. Also it seems that you are missing some vital information in that sentence; I think that it should be split and worded like this: "The fifteenth named storm, ninth and final hurricane of the 2001 season, Olga formed as a subtropical cyclone 900 mi (1,450 km) east-southeast of Bermuda on November 24. After acquiring tropical characteristics later that day, Olga meandered westward, and eventually reached hurricane status on November 26." Also link mi and km if you choose to the it this way.
"Olga’s winds peaked at 90 mph (150 km/h)..." - Link mph and km/h
"...the storm turned southwestward and weakening back into a tropical storm. Olga then dissipated as a tropical cyclone on December 4 east of the Bahamas." - So Olga did not weaken further to a tropical depression, re-intensify into a tropical storm, weaken back to a tropical depression again, and then dissipate?
"It was a relatively rare storm to exist in December, which is outside of the normal hurricane season." - Added Atlantic between "normal" and "hurricane", because in another basin, such as the Western Pacific, Olga would not have been outside the season.

Meteorological history

Apparently Olga had the second largest gale diameter of an Atlantic hurricane, per Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes. I see that it is stated in the second paragraph of the Meteorological history "...and the previously large wind field had contracted.", but it does not, but should, mention at the of the wind field or at least that it was the second largest of an Atlantic hurricane.
- I'm a little leery in putting that in, since the only source is some giant document listing wind sizes. I can't find any good sources that say that explicitly, and I'm sure if it were true, it would appear in its TCR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to think about rearranging or merging some paragraphs of the MH, especially the last two paragraphs, since most other tropical cyclone articles have three, if not four, paragraphs of Meteorological history.
- I changed the middle ones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...and on November 27 Olga attained peak winds of 90 mph (150 km/h)." - The minimum barometric pressure is missing, which is 973 mbar (hPa; 28.73 inHg).
- Bah, the pressure is useless, but I'll include it anyway :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact

In this section, I see some inconsistency with units of measurement: 12 feet (3.7 meters), 15–22 feet (3.7-6.7 meters), 12 ft (3.7 m); either abbreviate or spell out all three.
- Good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Bahamas and Bermuda; also there are earlier occasions in the article where Atlantic and Cuba can be wikilinked.
- OK. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Although apparently you don't need the references in last name, first name format, you should at least be consistent. Reference #1 and #9 read "Avila, Lixion" and "Dorst, Neil", which should be "Lixion Avila" and "Neil Dorst", respectively.
- Ah, ok, I copied them from an earlier version. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #9 has an incorrect date (2009), the actual date is 2010-01-21. On that same reference, wikilink "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration".
- Fixed, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I have finished my review, its a nice, but not yet "good" article. Just fix or address the issues above, and I will pass this article according to the GA criteria. Good luck, --12george1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! I believe I've addressed everything. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like you have done or address everything that I requested. So in its current state, I will be passing this article as a GA. Well done, --12george1 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]