Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)/archive1

Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I might take it to FAC one day. The article is comprehensive in that I've exhausted literally every source on it in every language out there, so I'm looking mostly for comments on prose, style and clarity. Nevertheless, feel free to make any necessary remarks on the content as well—all help is appreciated! Thanks, Auree ★ 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments!

• Despite generally favorable atmospheric conditions for further strengthening - I did a brief check, and it seems that the conditions were unfavorable (wind shear specifically is mentioned).

• Good catch--sloppy on my part. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• In Martinique, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain fell in just two hours; in one instance, a station recorded 2.75 inches (70 mm) in 6 minutes. - "6" should be spelled out.
• mucky waters washed - mucky? That seems a bit odd.
• Two deaths were blamed on the storm in the country, and hundreds of people became homeless. - given that the second half is active voice, perhaps switch the first half to something like "two people died in the country due to the storm", or some other way to make both halves use active voice?

• I dunno, I kind of like the contrast here. I can change it to "The storm killed two people and left hundreds homeless in the country." Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• On its path to Hispaniola, Cindy brushed the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with rough surf and some rain. - can you brush an island with rough surf? I'm not saying it's wrong, just wondering.
• Upon forming, the depression moved to the west-northwest toward Martinique and slowed, steered by mid to low-level flow. - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "mid" should be "mid-", given that it's "mid-level flow" as well as "low-level flow".

• You're right, and I did write it like that; I think it got removed by another user. Auree ★ 05:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• " Satellite images and a subsequent reconnaissance mission revealed that the depression had developed a central dense overcast while its winds had increased to gale force, leading the NHC to upgrade it to Tropical Storm Cindy around 1800 UTC." - that is the first indication of any time in that paragraph, so you should really establish the date, particularly since the end of the previous paragraph never even said "August 14".

• I always forget to do that! Sorry! Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "However, this upper-level pattern deteriorated when the storm moved away from the Lesser Antilles, preventing it from developing much." - does the latter refer to the upper-level pattern or the storm in general?

• I noticed that ambiguity when looking over the article yesterday, but I thought it'd be evident to readers. I'll tweak it. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Over the course of August 15, Cindy continued to display a disorganized structure due to unfavorable wind shear; its center remained ill-defined..." - just a little thingy, but "remained ill-defined" implies that it was ill-defined as of some point prior to August 15, despite the previous paragraph saying that the circulation increased in organization. Pardon for me being pedantic, but perhaps "remained" should be switched to "became"?

• A good suggestion, and not pedantic at all! Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• What happened to allow Cindy to strengthen to its peak? Was there a big burst of convection? A decrease in shear? Something romantic?

• No idea :( The TCR doesn't say, and the peak intensity was a post-storm estimate, so neither do the discussions. I'll make it sound like unusual and say "Despite the unfavorable conditions" (: Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "By then, it had begun making landfall near Barahona" - why not just.... "By then, it began making landfall"?

• The usage of "By" implies that it had already begun doing so--and it had. It weakened to a tropical depression while making landfall, but I didn't want it to become cluttered so I mentioned the weakening first. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Officials issued flash flood warnings for the island" - the previous sentence mentioned Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, so you might want to specify here.

• Woop, good catch Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Santo Domingo International Airport suspended its operations" - when?

• Mentioned. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any impact in Cuba? You mention preps.

• I looked before, but I couldn't find anything. There also isn't any impact from Haiti/the Bahamas, so I guess it dissipated before it could do much. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In a span of 2 hours, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain were recorded at Saint-Joseph, of which 2.75 in (70 mm) fell in only 6 minutes." - almost this same sentence was in the lede, but here you do numbers, not spelling out 2 and 6.

• Mostly because this paragraph is all about meteorological statistics (lots of numbers) while the lede isn't. What do you prefer? Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I think the "2 hours" and "6 minutes" should be spelled out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ask user:thegreatdr about the Puerto Rican rainfall discrepancy
• "In Villa Altagracia, one fatality was reported when a child drowned in flood waters, although the final death toll for the country stood at two." - I don't think "although" is the right word here. There is no contradiction. I'd just say "... and the final death toll..."
• I question whether a complete aftermath section is needed, considering this - "Sea conditions generated by Cindy restricted sea transport to Martinique" - is marginally impact.

• Well, that part isn't the important one; it's the bit after the semicolon that matters. I could reword it to put more emphasis on the succeeding bit. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All in all, really good work! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I've replied to most of your points; the ones that haven't been replied to were easy fixes/up to editor's preference. Auree ★ 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

As promised, here is my less-than-expert review of a completely-out-of-my-league article. :)

• Tropical Storm Cindy was a weak but unusually wet tropical cyclone that caused a flood disaster in Martinique in August 1993. -- is "flood disaster" the correct term here? It reads strangely to me; I almost expect it to say "disastrous flooding".
• Perhaps summarize in the first paragraph that storm killed a total of four people, before saying that two people were killed here and another two people killed there in the second paragraph?
• In Martinique, 15.6 inches (395 mm) of rain fell in just two hours; in one instance, a station recorded 2.75 inches (70 mm) in six minutes. -- Repetition of "In... in; in... in". Reword?
• However, the upper-level pattern deteriorated when Cindy moved away from the Lesser Antilles, preventing the storm from developing much. -- "from developing much" seems rather sub par. "from further development", maybe?
• The high terrain disrupted its circulation, causing it to weaken back to a tropical depression around 2100 UTC on August 16. By then, it had begun making landfall near Barahona in the Dominican Republic...' -- "by then" is somewhat confusing, as it forces the reader to back up and re-read the previous sentence. Perhaps reword to remove the "by then" and combine the two thoughts?
• The depression became increasingly disorganized over land, and the NHC declassified it as a tropical cyclone early on August 17. -- What does "early on August 17" mean? In the early hours of August 17? It almost reads as a split infinitive as is.
• References look good, except for a few minor things:
  • Ref 1: Mayfield, Britt M. (1993-25-10). Preliminary Report Tropical Storm Cindy: 14–17 August 1993. -- Day/Month instead of Month/Date?
  • With citation templates, be careful not to list websites as under the "work=" parameter because it automatically italicizes; I see a couple instances of this, such as with Geodata.us., which should not be italicized. Use "publisher=" instead.

• Well, I was following the convention listed here, as I'm not sure if Geodata is the actual "publisher", so to speak. Auree ★ 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see what you mean. It's been a while since I've used citation templates in my own articles, but my understanding is that it's the output that matters, not how you input it. From what I can tell, Geodata and other website names should not be italicized, so however you can fiddle with the template to fix that, awesome. I've always just used "publisher=", but maybe that was wrong? María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images check out as far as I can tell.

Very interesting read, I enjoyed it. While I don't know if all of the prose can be called "brilliant" at this point, I do think the best written section is "Impact" -- it flows incredibly well and was the easiest to read for me. A bit of polishing may be needed before FAC, but I think you'll do well there. Best of luck! María (yllosubmarine) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (and it was very much expert :)! It can be hard to achieve the brilliant prose standard with technical articles such as this one. I'll give it another look through today and address your concerns. Cheers, Auree ★

Alright, applied all the changes and replied to one concern Auree ★ 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to revisit the article, and I think the prose has been much improved. I fixed one minor case of redundancy (of the... the... of the...) in the lead, but everything else reads well. Best of luck! María (yllosubmarine) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)