Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyclone Nora/archive1

Cyclone Nora

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on how successful the article might be if it was to be nominated as a Good Article candidate.

Thanks, ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Review

Will be doing. Noah^Talk 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede

• Severe Tropical Cyclone Nora was a strong tropical cyclone that brought moderate impacts to Far North Queensland and minor impacts to the northeastern Northern Territory during March 2018. Probably better to simply say it affected both regions since the article will go into detail about the level of the damage.

  Fixed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nora was the strongest system to make landfall on Queensland's Gulf of Carpentaria coast since Tropical Cyclone Abigail in 2001.[1] It was also the strongest tropical cyclone to exist in the Gulf of Carpentaria since Severe Tropical Cyclone Lam in 2015. I would suggest removing these from the lede and simply have them mentioned in the MH as you get to each of them.

  OK. Also, it was supposed to be Cyclone Monica, but it was incorrectly changed to Lam without me noticing. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• The system initially moved quickly to the west-northwest, and then began tracking slowly southwestwards over the Arafura Sea while gradually developing. I would suggest changing this to "The system initially moved quickly to the west-northwest before slowly tracking southwestward over the Arafura Sea as it gradually developed".

• Nora then underwent a period of rapid intensification, and reached peak intensity as a high-end Category 3 severe tropical cyclone on the Australian scale. Maximum sustained winds were estimated as 155 km/h (100 mph), with a minimum barometric pressure of 958 hPa (28.29 inHg). These can be combined... "Nora then underwent a period of rapid intensification, peaking as a high-end Category 3 severe tropical cyclone with sustained winds of 155 km/h (100 mph) and a minimum pressure of 958 hPa (28.29 inHg)." This takes up less room while achieving the same effect. May I also ask what day it peaked on?

  Done (and it was 23 March). ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Link rapid intensification and link to the Australian scale on the TC scales page.

  Done ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nora's one-minute mean winds peaked at 175 km/h (110 mph)—the upper limit of Category 2 hurricane strength on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. This is too wordy in my opinion and not worth mentioning here as the JTWC is unofficial. It kinda cuts off the flow to the next part of the lede as well.

  Fair point. I've removed it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ex-Tropical Cyclone Nora meandered over land for several days, before its remnants moved back over the Gulf of Carpentaria and dissipated on 28 March. Could say "Nora's remnants [...], before they moved [...]" It is slightly less wordy.

  Fixed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nora was responsible for major impacts This needs to be changed considering you said moderate above. I would recommend saying "moderate damage".

  This is another example of the wording being changed without me realising. It originally said 'significant' rather than 'moderate' at the top. I think it is justifiable to call the impacts major. What do you think? ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  $15 million USD with no deaths really isn't major. Noah^Talk 02:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  OK, I will change it to moderate. My thinking was more about the actual scale of the flooding and the fact that the communities were isolated, rather than the actual damage total. Also, just to be pedantic, it was US$25 million. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• The two sentences about the rainfall should be combined.

  I might keep them separate just to try and maintain one main idea per sentence. The first sentence is specifically about the extreme rainfall, primarily in Port Douglas, and the second sentence is about flash flooding in Cairns. I think they're distinct enough to have two sentences. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• after becoming threatened this is a bit clunky.

  Changed 'threatened' to 'trapped'. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

MH

• Use the conversion template for temperatures and make sure abbreviations are on. This is an issue throughout the MH.

  Fixed the temperatures. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think you meant to link to Atmospheric Convection rather than Convection in general. Also, you may want to link to rainband.

  I didn't know there was an atmospheric convection article. I have fixed this, and I linked to the rainband article as well. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• No TCFA?

  Added in a sentence for this. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• the system was officially upgraded to a Category 1 tropical cyclone on the Australian scale by the BOM, and was named Nora. Cut that part and say "assigned the name Nora by the BOM". Since you mention the scale again below, this isn't needed here. Plus the mention here is clunky.

  Done. Should I also remove the mention of the SSHWS in the preceding sentence? ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, yes. Tropical storm is not on the SSHWS. The scale officially starts at Cat 1. Tropical storm and depression are just related classifications. Noah^Talk 03:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  I will take it away. I will link to the SSHWS though, as it is still related, and a reader may not know what a tropical storm is. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• was providing --> provided

  Fixed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Change the link for wind shear to include #vertical component

  Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think the one-degree change in SSTs deserves most of a sentence.

  Combined

• Maybe see if you could combine the environment changes into one sentence.

  Combined. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• In response to the highly conducive environment, Nora began to rapidly intensify. The system reached Category 2 strength on the Australian scale at 00:00 UTC on 23 March as a primitive eye began to emerge on visible-light satellite imagery Recommend that cut since you have just discussed the more favorable environment. Additionally, those two sentences should be combined.

  Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Shortly afterwards, Nora turned southeastwards too many "wards"

  Ha ha ha. I have culled the 'wards'. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would change one-minute mean to 1-minute sustained and link to Maximum sustained wind. This should be repeated at the peak intensity as well.

  Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Over the following three hours, Nora underwent explosive intensification, with maximum ten-minute sustained winds increasing by an average of 5 knots (9 km/h; 6 mph) every hour I would cut this as this is defined over a 24 hour period.

  I included this to show just how fast the strengthening was, rather than to provide a definition of explosive intensification. Averaged over 24 hours, it would be an increase of 120 knots. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nora peaked in intensity shortly afterwards upon entering the Gulf of Carpentaria, reaching high-end Category 3 severe tropical cyclone status on the Australian scale. Wording issue in this sentence.

  Reworded. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• ten-minute mean winds change to "10-minute sustained winds" without a link

  Changed 'mean' to 'sustained', and removed the link. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Central barometric pressure would be better as "minimum central pressure" with a link to atmospheric pressure.

  Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Link landfall

  Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• quasi-stationary on 25–27 March. should be from instead of on.

  Indeed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• dissipation occurred --> dissipated

  I changed this, and also made it into two sentences. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Preparations

• Forecasts indicated that the system could strengthen into a powerful Category 4 severe tropical cyclone if this scenario were to eventuate. tense issue.

  I have reworded it: "Forecasts indicated that the system could have strengthened into a powerful Category 4 severe tropical cyclone if this scenario were to have eventuated." Tell me what you think. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks fine. Just an FYI, I will be leaving soon (Once I finish 2001 on my list; currently 3/7) since I have to get up early in the morning (midnight right now). Noah^Talk 03:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Impacts

• exceeding what had been expected. what was expected?

  The source doesn't actually say what sort of damage authorities had been expecting. All it mentions is that what did occur was worse than anticipated. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• as well as at least five piece of infrastructure. pluralize piece

  Well spotted. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• In parts of east coast and Gulf of Carpentaria coast East coast of what?

  The "of Queensland" after that excerpt is supposed to specify that the rainfall occurred in the east coast of Queensland and the Gulf (of Carpentaria) coast of Queensland. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• nearly hit by a landslide while driving on the highway to Port Douglas shouldn't it buried with a landslide?

  I guess it depends how big the landslide was. But I will change it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Link to tonnes

  Done. I also linked to pounds for lb, because many people outside of North America are probably unfamiliar with the abbreviation. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That should be it. Noah^Talk 19:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @ChocolateTrain: I am hereby closing this review as I feel the article has a good shot at passing a GAN. Good job and good luck! Noah^Talk 04:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)