Talk:1964 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Going to be reviewing this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Infobox contradicts details in the article (Odessa's winds / strongest storm is not listed by pressure)
It would be more useful to state that the NFWC was in charge of advisories in the basin within the lead than the season summary, in my opinion
Probably should give a brief explanation of the boundaries of the basin, a single sentence would suffice.
I'm hesitant to agree with using the Category 2 peak for Odessa since it's not listed as such by HURDAT (the final say in TC intensity).
"Of the two hurricanes, one reached Category 2 intensity of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale." – Both the SSHWS and SSHS did not exist in 1964. It should be noted that it would have been classified as such on the modern-day scale. Also, add the SSHWS or SSHS acronym and replace uses of "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale" with that throughout the article.
"No storms reached major hurricane status (Category 3 or higher on the hurricane scale)..." – simply linking "major hurricane" to "SSHWS#Category 3" would suffice over the parenthetical explanation.
I would prefer to see the rest of the lead reworked a bit.
- State when the first storm formed and when the last dissipated
- Give a general overview of impact caused by the storms, note any major details

Season summary

"Moreover, 1964 is the least active season since the satellite era began in the basin in 1961." and "...and 1964 is still two years shy of the start of the geostationary satellite era, which began in 1966." – these two sentences seem contradictory, especially when taken from the perspective of a layman. Also, not a fan of the wording for the second part.
No need to provide an acronym for Pacific Decadal Oscillation since it's only used once.
"Some efforts are underway to improve the records for this time period; however, this process will likely take years to complete." – not necessarily relevant to the article itself since it doesn't have specifics for 1964.

Natalie

"On July 5, the ship California Star recorded winds of 35 mph (55 km/h) and a barometric pressure of 1,005.8 mb (30 inHg); consequently, the storm was upgraded into Tropical Storm Nataline." – Context of where the storm is, and one being there in the first place is necessary.
"After passing through the Tres Marinas Islands just offshore, Nateline attained its peak intensity of 80 mph (130 km/h) (making Nataline a Category 1 hurricane on the present-day Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) and a peak pressure of 1,001 mb (29.6 inHg), though the Pacific hurricane database does not show the storm getting any stronger than 50 mph (80 km/h)." – No idea where the Tres Marinas Islands are so I still don't know text-wise where this storm is. Please understand that HURDAT overrides the older reports on storms. Just because one report lists it as stronger, doesn't mean it overrules the final listing in HURDAT. Instead, Natalie should be listed as a tropical storm with a sentence stating that it may have been a hurricane for whatever the reason is in that report. Additionally, "peak pressure" is improper wording; minimum pressure or lowest pressure is preferable since it's a value that decreases as storms get stronger.
"The next day, July 7, the NFWC reported that Nataline made landfall near Mazatlan with winds of 50 mph (80 km/h) just before dissipating." – There was no prior indication of a transition to July 6, so this makes no sense. According to HURDAT the storm persisted for several hours after making landfall
Was the storm ever moving and if so, in what direction?

General notes

Please, please, please check for grammar issues! There are several present in the article and these should be addressed before an article goes to GAN.
I've noticed this in other PHS articles that you've worked on but you seem to take the HURDAT values as exact indications of the storm's intensity. Due to the lack of data, these are merely general estimates of the intensity and should not be taken as solid evidence for changes in strength. One example is within Prudence's section: "... it initially failed to intensify, and maintained winds of 50 mph (85 km/h) for a few days..." It's more appropriate to just state what the intensity was and say where it was moving rather than straddle the line with Original Research and state that nothing happened.

I think you get my point. This article needs a fair amount of copy editing and fact checking before going any further. Due to the large amount of issues, I'm failing this article, sorry. Once you address the concerns above as well as look over the other sections and apply similar changes, you can give the article another go. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]