Talk:Hurricane Gonzalo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with all of the work you've done over the past few days! I'll happily GA review this.

"The strongest hurricane in the Atlantic since Igor in 2010" - add a link to the BT for this
"Gonzalo formed from a tropical wave on October 12, while located east of the Lesser Antilles, and made landfall on Antigua, Saint Martin, and Anguilla as a Category 1 hurricane, causing damage on those and nearby islands." - this could be split up, especially as the landfalls weren't on October 12th.
"many dozens of boats" - the "many" is superfluous
The structure of the lead is interesting, but I think it could use some work. Perhaps put the Bermuda aftermath with the rest of Bermuda, and move the "Departing Bermuda" sentence with the extratropical portion?
"The eyewall replacement cycle briefly disrupted the storm's core, allowing Gonzalo to weaken slightly" - "allowing" might not be the best word here. Perhaps a simple "causing"?
Where was Gonzalo when it became ET?
How come Newfoundland's TS watch isn't in preparations? Was that a stylistic decision (keeping Newfoundland stuff together to keep it a decent length) or an oversight? There might be some other stuff here - [1] and [2]

Mostly because I hate short paragraphs, but I can move it if necessary. I just feel that those brief couple of ideas lose what little impact they have when sited half an article away from the subsequent impact.

"A total of 79 homes in just the three hardest-hit constituencies sustained damage" - I'm sure this could be less technical

Any ideas? The article indicates there were a lot more than that, so "at least 79" would probably be lowballing it, but I can't find the original report they talk about. I'd hate to just say "dozens" again since I've used that word a few times in the article.

Was there any other damage on St. Barts? You mention 126 mph wind gusts, which damaged a lot of boats, but no mention of infrastructure there
" qualifying the government for a US$500,000 "excess rainfall" insurance payout" - from whom?

Well, from their insurance broker. The company doesn't seem particularly notable, so I didn't bother to mention it. Can do so if needed.

"The intense winds brought down many utility poles and hundreds of trees (likely exacerbated by saturated ground from record rainfall in the months prior[64]), leaving "barely a road" passable.[72][73]" - so were refs 72 and 73 both used to back up that quote? Or the rest of the sentence? I'm guessing the latter, in which case you should just move ref 64 to the end of the sentence.
"but an 0.8 m (2.6 ft) surge was recorded at both St. John's and Argentia - "an"? Also, why does this section use metric first, but imperial later? The whole article should be consistent.
"Winds gusted to 88 miles per hour (142 km/h)" - abbr?
"throughout Germany, the storm wrought €60–100 million in insured losses" - anything more about this? That's a lot of insured damage for Germany!

Working on this.

All in all a great read! Great prose all throughout. Just some minor things here that shouldn't be terribly hard to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful review. Just a few things I still have to work on. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more context to the Germany and Austria info. Most of the damage in the region is pretty monotonous... "tree down on a car, road closed, a few people without power" times ∞. I'll likely try to flesh out the section a bit further before I take the article to FAC. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]