Talk:Hurricane Ekeka/GA2

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Having read through it, I see only a few issues which I will list. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, autoformating of dates is discouraged. I have a script that will remove the autoformatting. Do you want me to use it?
  • I ran the script over it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash (2005–08, not 2005-08 or 2005/08)" per MoS. Thus 1991/1992 in your article needs to conform.
  • I changed the year, thanks for catching that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
• "anomalously" - how about unusually?
  • "Anamalously" was chosen by the official warning agency to describe the situation, and I would agree. Something unusual may not be an anomaly. I feel the wording emphasizes that it was beyond unusual. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
• Comment: Ekeka is not the only January February EPac/CPac tropical cyclone; see List of Pacific hurricanes#Off-season storms. But I'm not sure whether the statement about HURDAT (which I added) gives enough coverage/clarification already. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec - that list shows no other EPAC tropical cyclones in January. Even if it did, I think your qualifier of in Hurdat makes it clear enough. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant February. If you think the current clarification is fine that's okay. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think it would help to mention that it formed (or was recognized) near Hawaii, as it is difficult from the geographical description and the image of the storm track to picture exactly where this storm was. (Will address above comment when I understand what it means.)
  • I clarified more in the lede it was south of Hawaii, but I feel the rest of the article explains its proximity to Hawaii well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "increased the weakening rate, which weakened Ekeka..." - can you think of different wording than using "weakening", "weakened" so close together?
• "the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed the storm with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h)..." assessed the storm winds at 50 mph?
  • Got both of the above. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• What is HURDAT?
• When you say "basin", you mean the Pacific basin?
• "unfavorable wind shear" - is that strong wind shear, or some other aspect of wind shear?
  • HURDAT is the database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I clarified what it was in the article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I guess you do not know what those letters stand for?
• "Ekeka was the only tropical cyclone recorded in the official HURDAT "Best Track" database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information to occur in January or February within the Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line;" - perhaps some commas and "as", e.g. Ekeka was the only tropical cyclone, as recorded in the official HURDAT "Best Track" database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information, to occur in January or February within the Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line;? Or some other way to clarify the long sentence.
  • I shortened the sentence, and also removed the potentially confusing HURDAT acronym (which really just means hurricane database). BTW, "unfavorable wind shear" refers to wind shear that is unfavorable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

Very funny! According to the wind shear article, strong, vertical wind shear inhibits tropical cyclone development. How about putting that in?

Sorry if I sounded condescending, but I chose that writing for a reason. The source does not specify if the shear was strong or not; it just said (something along the lines of) that the shear prevented further development, and so the word "unfavorable" I believe works quite well there. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

Okay. But for FAC, I don't think that would pass.

Maybe so; however, this is GAN, not FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::::: It doesn't help the normal reader understand.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)