Talk:Tropical Storm Rachel (1990)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Hey, I'll be reviewing this article which you put up for GAN. I'll have the full review up within the next hour or so. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Slowly intensifying, it took the depression three days to become a tropical storm, which was named Rachel. - The sentence is technically good but, it could read better if it was reworded a bit, especially the last bit with the naming.
• Early on September 27, the twenty-first tropical depression of the season had developed, contradicts the previous statement in the lede of Rachel being the twenty-fourth.
• Try and avoid using "believed" (at least in the Met history), it makes it seem that there was less confidence from the NHC.
• By that time, it was believed to have been a minimal tropical storm while located 540 mi (870 km) south of Baja California. - Make the above correction to this sentence
• It steadily intensified; though the convection was initially displaced form the center. - reword to avoid the semicolon, it doesn't really fit in for such a short sentence.
• Always write out the first use of an acronym. I corrected it for you in the met history.
• The last sentence of the second paragraph and first of the third in the Met history seem to be out of order. How could it be over the Gulf of California if it didn't cross Baja California yet?
• The remnants of Rachel continued into Texas. - Feels like there should be more, is there any info on where the remnants were last noted?
• The highest rainfall total was 6.5 in (170 mm) at San Jose Del Cobe near the tip of Baja California. - There needs to be a better first sentence to introduce the paragraph
• Although no official reports of gale-fore winds were received, two weather stations reported pressure of 1005 and 1006 mbar (hPa; 29.68 and 29.71 inHg), respectively. - Two things: one, the pressures don't contradict the lack of gale force winds (structure of the sentence implies there were unofficial readings of these winds); two, since you didn't name the stations, using respectively at the end has no meaning.
• When stating rainfall amounts, always use {{convert}}
• The referencing in the article needs to be consistent. You have the |date= using the written out form while |accessdate= uses the numeric form.
• According to WP:MOS, it's best to have non-breaking spaces within dates and numbers with units.

I also copyedited the article a bit to clean things up to match with WP:MOS and to specify things a bit better. All-in-all, it's a nicely written article that needs some tweaking. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll gladly pass the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues you had before making a decision. However, I was unable to find more on where the remnants of Rachel went, so I just left it off at dissipating over Texas.--12george1 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, everything seems to have been addressed, I'm passing the article. Good work! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)