Talk:Hurricane Alma (1996)

Todo/GA on hold
Just look over all of the writing again. I find the dates in these sentences confusing. ''The convection soon became aligned with the low–level center; at 0000 UTC on June 20 it was designated as a tropical depression. The depression rapidly intensified, and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Alma by 1800 UTC, and as the wind shear relaxed it was upgraded to a hurricane at 0000 UTC on July 22 while tracking generally northwest.'' Try to avoid so many UTC's. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I tried to go through the prose, and I gave it a good copyedit, so it should be good for a GAN run? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, and you can consider my comments part of a GA review. The sentence which crossed Central America on June 17 or 18 violates the date policy, since other users may read it as "on 18 June or 19", which doesn't make much sense. Try avoiding the dates in general "which crossed Central America in the middle of the month". The specific origin of Alma are unknown - there is a grammar problem, and I'm only pointing it out so you don't do it in the future. Removing the prepositional phrase, the sentence reads "the specific origin are unknown". You need consistency between noun and verb, so either "origins are" or "origin is". You should Wikilink "trough" and "hurricane warnings". The sentence A landfall near Lazaro Cardenas ended this trend, as Alma moved back over water and meandered for about 36 hours. feels awkward. I believe that such an important event in the history of a tropical cyclone (landfall) should be given more weight, and it could easily be part of the previous sentence. However, the subsequent clause, about moving back over water, deserves its own complete thought. I'm confused at the placement of the following sentences in the storm history; During its lifetime it remained a fairly compact storm. In addition, Alma was the first of three consecutive storms to come close to, or make landfall on, the Pacific coast of Mexico during a ten day span. Those occur just after three sentences about the forecasting, but neither of the subsequent sentences have anything to do about forecasting. I recommend integrating them into the first two paragraphs of the SH. In he impact, "reports in Mexico reported" - spot the redundancy? Try and reword the following sentence, as it feels like a run-on; maybe use some commas. "There were unconfirmed reports that the heavy rainfall produced by the storm resulted in flooding in Puebla which killed 17 people" As always, I'd love more impact, though I know most of the available info has been harnessed already. However, there probably are Spanish sources, if the user is willing to look, but I won't hold that against the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm putting this on hold, just until all of my comments are addressed. I'll put them again, and add more, for ease of use.

♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence which crossed Central America on June 17 or 18 violates the date policy, since other users may read it as "on 18 June or 19", which doesn't make much sense. You could try avoiding the dates in general "which crossed Central America in the middle of the month".
 * You should Wikilink "trough", "hurricane warnings", UTC, and "GFDL models".
 * I'm confused at the placement of the following sentence in the storm history; During its lifetime it remained a fairly compact storm. It occurs just after three sentences about the forecasting, but it doesn't have anything to do about forecasting. I recommend integrating it into the first two paragraphs of the SH.
 * Could the following sentence be re-organized? The government news agency Notimex reported that Alma ripped roofs off of some houses, downed powerlines and uprooted numerous trees, with thousands left homeless - also, power lines are two separate words, not one word.
 * I recommend you re-read the article, as the prose could be better. The sentence, "A mid–level trough located near Baja California, combined with a mid–to–upper–level low over the southwest Gulf of Mexico began to steer Alma northward towards the southwest coast of Mexico, prior to reaching a peak intensity of 969 mb at 1200 UTC on June 23." - could imply that the trough combined with a low before the combined system reached a peak intensity. Also, there is a grammar in the first sentence of the SH - "The specific origins of Alma are unknown, although it is believed to..."
 * You should mention when and where Alma reached peak winds.
 * It'd be nice if the met. history was explained better. Why did it initially move northwestward? What conditions allowed it to quickly strengthen? (note: I am very confused how it strengthened, given you just stated that upper-level shear was not a detrimental factor, and certainly the wind shear did not help).
 * As always, I'd love more impact, though I know most of the available info has been harnessed already. However, there probably are Spanish sources, if the user is willing to look, but I won't hold that against the article.
 * I notice several Wikilinks that are redirects. It would be nice if you could check and fix the links to make sure they are going where you want them to go.
 * I'l get to those issues as I have time, but as for the SH I don't know how much more I can expand it. I've used pretty much every last fact from the TCR. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I finally got everything done except for maybe one thing. Ready to pass yet? Thanks in advance, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - You might want to withdraw the GAN, since the NHC has a ton of info on the storm not included here. In particular, the SH needs to be completely re-written using info outside of the TCR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)