Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Ophelia (2011) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2013Good article nomineeListed

File:Cars in Bermuda getting washed away.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Cars in Bermuda getting washed away.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2011)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice job on this! Looks pretty good, but of course there's room for improvement. Here's what I'm seeing in the way of GA:

  • Areas affected: I understand the need to stave off overlinking, but it looks really weird for three regions in a row to be linked and the fourth unlinked. Also, I would standardize between UK in the lead and Europe in the infobox.
    • I just restructured the first sentence completely. It's probably a bit more interesting anyways. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead goes too far into synoptic history. Currently the intro accounts for over 1/4 of the article's wordcount. I would see if you could summarize the meteo stuff into one paragraph, and then perhaps add a little detail to the impact summary.
  • as increased wind shear from a nearby cold-core low... - thermal structure wording is weird. I would just say upper-level trough, upper low, ET low, mid-lat low, whatever.
  • Despite the poor presentation on geostationary satellite images - needlessly specific, since we don't really use any other kind of satellites for most intensity assessments.
    • Well there's always microwave imagery, but I guess you're right in saying there's no need to be so specific, so I removed the usage. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the upper-level low moved closer to Ophelia, inducing increasingly unfavorable shear near the center of the storm - nitpicky, but the shear surely enveloped the whole circulation instead of only affecting the center.
  • I'm not sure what you can do, but the second paragraph of the MH kind of rambles on. I would like to see a tighter summary, possibly as simple as indicating that the storm underwent fluctuations in intensity and CDO coverage before initial dissipation.
  • The transition between second and third paras is confusing. You leave off the dissipation phase by saying there was no convection near the LLC, leading to its exposure, but start off the next paragraph indicating there was somehow convection with the MLL instead. Thunderstorms can't occur in vertical layers, so you need to clear that up.
  • I think you could probably get away with killing off the chances of development in the third paragraph. Forecasting stats aren't that important if they didn't bust horribly.
    • I guess I could, but I believe it offers more analysis into what happened after the system dissipated, and it adds extra transition IMO. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep convection blossomed atop the low-level center late on September 28 - same thing as two points above. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how you want to deal with this.
  • Atmospheric convection continued to deepen - it's a little late to go with such broad terminology. Again, your call how to fix it, but no need for the atmospheric bit since we've established this was an atmospheric event.
  • The impact section is better in terms of writing and clarity, but it's lacking in content. The last paragraph talks about what could possibly happen but never says what did, which is extremely unsatisfying for an historical event account. I have some articles that you could use to flesh it out, but they're by archive, so I'll chat with you on IRC to work out something.

Overall, I'd say this should keep you busy for a while, but it's doable by all means. I'll even help to the extent I'm allowed (I'm sure nobody will object to pushing the boundaries in the interests of quality). On-hold for a while. Juliancolton (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm happy with your progress. Passing the article. Juliancolton (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Ophelia (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Ophelia (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ophelia_(2011)&oldid=1211229150"