Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Tropical Storm Karina (2008)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones‎ | Assessment

Tropical Storm Karina (2008)

edit
Archived discussion. Current status: {{FA-Class}}

Tropical Storm Karina (2008)

edit

This article has been rated a GA and been peer reviewed and I'm hoping to improve this further and move towards A-class. Although this is a short article, it (as I've heard from others) is very detailed. All thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged :D Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then shoot for FA not a. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/SandboxHappy Nevada Day 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to "jump the gun" I'm just taking it one step at a time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rewrite the first paragraph of the met. history a tad, to integrate the TCR more. Remember, the TCR is equal to the best track, meaning that is what put down in the historical record. It is much more important that Karina became a tropical depression at X time, then for the NHC to not realize it was a tropical storm until later.
  • Reference 3 does not mention anything about TCFA. Either remove/rewrite that, or find a source for when the TCFA was issued. Make sure every reference can back up every single claim in the article.
  • I would avoid saying "the storm" so many times before it actually became a TC
  • Avoid so much passive voice. You use it a ton - e.g. can be traced, was located, was nearing, was issued, was forecast, etc.
  • Though it seems very detailed, some parts of the text seem superfluous. The best article is the one that uses the least amount of words to say something, not the most. Here's the first two sentences of the MH, which I think could be re-written as one in much fewer words.
    • The origins of Tropical Storm Karina can be traced to a tropical wave which later developed into Hurricane Gustav on August 28. As Gustav intensified into a hurricane and neared the southern coast of Haiti, the southern portion of the wave broke off and traveled towards the west, producing minimal convection
      • And it could be something like this
    • The origins of Tropical Storm Karina are from the southern portion of the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean Sea
      • Notice how much I removed, but was it anything significant? If you look at the TCR closely, you'll see that the date they provided was the date when the wave crossed Central America, not when the system first formed. Also, the TCR isn't clear whether Gustav was a hurricane or not, but that's not important. What is important is that it was from the same TW. Now, you could say the date for the next sentence "The wave crossed Central America into the Pacific Ocean on August 28..." I hate to be the bad guy to say it, but yes, some parts have to be re-written.
  • Try and keep in mind your audience. If some random person happens to read it, you do not want to lose them, so at all costs you should avoid too much information (TMI). An example of potentially TMI is the Dvorak number, but that's up to you. Is the exact T number important, or instead is the wind speed derived from it?
  • Little quibble about the text. You say, The remnant low quickly dissipated that afternoon without further development. I know it's a technicality, but didn't you mean without redevelopment"?
  • How close did Karina pass to Socorro Island or Clarion Island? The first wind speed probability mentioned both of them.
  • I like the naming bit. No complaints there.
  • Is the following important?
    • However, it is possible that Karina never reached tropical storm status as it is not noted in the season summary supplied by the National Climatic Data Center. This was later denied in the Tropical Cyclone report released by the National Hurricane Center on October 20, 2008.
      • The NCDC might have just forgotten to include it. The NHC always had it as a tropical cyclone.
  • Try and get more discussion on the ACE. There's not much agreement whether or not to have it.
  • That's it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking, the storm did pass extremely close to the island but there are no reports of any effects, there were preparations made though in advance of the storm, so that also will be added. [1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the last section, Impact, naming, and statistics will probably be too long (IMO) with the addition of preparations. Should I split the two into Preparations and impact, and Naming and statistics? or just have all four in one section? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done most of what you noted. There are probably things I've missed but I'm not sure where or what was missed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New review now.

  • First paragraph looks better. You say "Located in an area favorable for development", but just two sentences prior you say "but was nearing cooler waters and a moist, but stable, air mass". If it was really that favorable, then what changed?
  • Always avoid time zone times, and instead use UTC
  • "the possibility of development of a tropical cyclone within 48 hours was possible" - I don't like the wording. Most places worldwide tropical cyclone development is possible within 48 hours, albeit sometimes more likely than others.
  • When you first mention a circulation developing, you say it was underneath the convection, but the source says it was partially exposed. That should be clarified. Thus, the next sentence needs better integration, since the center was already exposed. Was the circulation ever under the thunderstorms?
  • "The NHC initially recognize this and did not initiate advisories on the system until several hours later" - is something missing? You just said it became a TD.
  • The second paragraph begins rather poor, with just "Karina was located". Each paragraph should have its own identity. Sometimes I'll read just certain paragraphs, such as the last one.
  • Given what happened, and how it wasn't much of a surprise, is all of this needed?
    • In the afternoon, most forecast models were in agreement on the future track and intensity of Karina. They were showing the storm quickly weakening to a tropical depression and meandering to the southwest of Baja California Sur in the low-level flow
  • "was moving into a stable environment" - maybe clarify what stable means
  • "The foreword motion also slowed down slightly to 7 mph (11 km/h)" - typo? Also, is it really important that it slowed from 9 mph to 7 mph? Seems like a tad TMI.
  • "The foreword speed continued to slowly lessen and the remnant low was drifting to the northwest at 5 mph (8 km/h)." - seems like a really long-winded way of saying "The low gradually decelerated".
  • It still seems like redundancies are a bit of a problem. Consider the last few sentences
    • By the morning of September 3, convection had been blown 125 mi (200 km) from the center of Karina, leaving only a swirl of clouds. Karina degenerated into a remnant low-pressure area later that morning. The foreword speed continued to slowly lessen and the remnant low was drifting to the northwest at 5 mph (8 km/h). Since Karina had degenerated into a remnant low, the NHC issued their fifth and final advisory on the storm. The remnant low quickly dissipated that afternoon without redevelopment.
      • In there, you mention "remnant low" four times, all within a few hour period. Nothing that much really happened, so couldn't you try and just make that one or two sentences?
  • Another problem with the writing is still a lot of passive voice.
  • You should mention its proximity to Socorro Island in the met. history
  • Speaking of which, are you sure Karina affected the island? You say it did in the Infobox, but you don't mention any impact. There is a station on the island that collects met. data, so maybe you could try and find that and use it.
  • As I said before, is this really needed? What if it was just an honest mistake?
    • However, it is possible that Karina never reached tropical storm status as it is not noted in the season summary supplied by the National Climatic Data Center.[17] This was later denied in the Tropical Cyclone report released by the National Hurricane Center on October 20, 2008.[1
  • It's getting there. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected most of the addressed points I think, again there might be a few (other than the following) that I missed. Just a few things, how would I go about clarifying stable and what is a good explanation of it? As I've put above, I'm still confused with the passive voice. The wording of the the first sentence of the first paragraph, would "The newly upgraded Karina (storm/tropical storm/cyclone)..." be acceptable? Lastly, the impact on Socorro, I couldn't find anything with the met. data from the Island. All I have is what is put in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stable air is just air without instability, which is bad since TC's thrive on instability. The way to fix passive voice is to rewrite the sentence. Example: instead of writing "The storm was upgraded by the NHC", say "The NHC upgraded the storm." Using passive voice is just a way to extend the prose. What I meant about the second paragraph, it'd be nice to have some filler, an intro, which links the prose to the previous paragraph. I usually like to use something like "Upon being upgraded to a tropical storm, Karina was bla-diddy-blah blah."
More comments.
  • Sorry to be picky, but I'd like some confirmation whether Karina was really one of the shortest lived EPAC tropical cyclones. Does that include depressions? If so, then I'm sure some depressions lasted shorter than Karina.
    • Yea, I think I'm stuck with this one. If TD's are included, a quick find is TD 20E from 2006, 18 hours. If TD's are excluded and you go by time as a TS, another quick find is TS Kevin from 2003, only 6 hours as a TS. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Clarion Island, the article says only nine people are on the island. It seems weird that those nine military people would be doing coastal activities, so you might want to mention that in the writing.
  • Some sort of decision is needed on ACE in storm articles. Could you comment again in the WPTC talk page (ideally from a WPTC wide point of view, not just whether ACE will personally affect your articles)?
  • I just realized something - you should clarify the date for when the storm formed. You don't say that in the met. history.
  • "The NHC initially recognize the system" - is there a missing word? (check the whole sentence)
  • I'm still a little concerned the prose is not concise enough. It's two very long paragraphs on a storm that lasted ~36 hours. I'd double-check for that.
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now (for A-class), though with another set of eyes on the article I might support it. My biggest concern is it being concise enough, for the met. history, as well as ACE. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MH covers five days, from August 28 to September 5, the first paragraph is up until September 2 (when it became a TC) and the second is while it was a TC and the reasonings for its weakening and dissipation. I don't see how it's not concise enough. If I make it any shorter, facts might have to be removed, which would deteriorate the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to confirm my position on here, some of the sentences contain some excess verbiage. Example, "However, strong easterly wind shear caused the showers and thunderstorms associated with the low to become displaced from the center." Another example, "The wave entered the Pacific Ocean on August 30 as it developed into an area of low pressure off the western coast of Mexico on the morning of September 1, and was determined to have become a depression in the early morning of September 2." Another set of eyes (other than JC, who's already reviewed it) would be good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

edit

All right, guys, like I said, in order to keep this page small, we'll be periodically flushing the page by promoting/archiving pages that become inactive. At this point, we'll enter the "FARC" phase of the review, so it's time to just !!vote under the usual rules to see whether we promote the page to A-Class or not. I'll close this review on 2008-12-31, so please comment in support or opposition to this article's promotion to A-Class. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Assessment/Tropical_Storm_Karina_(2008)&oldid=1142556450"