Talk:Hurricane Epsilon (2020)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Destroyeraa-alt (talk · contribs) 20:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Doing...


 * General: Add alt text for all images.
 * I don't think that this is a requirement for a GA-level article. But ✅ anyway.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Epsilon caused one death in Florida, when a 27-year-old man drowned in rip currents produced by Epsilon. Redundant to mention Epsilon twice.
 * .  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Link ridge to ridge (meteorology)
 * ✅. I forgot to add this link while editing yesterday.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * and was given the name Epsilon. Link given the name to tropical cyclone naming.
 * ✅.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ASCAT data Link ASCAT to scatterometer.
 * ✅.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * interacting with a dissipating cold front to its north and a negatively-titled upper-level trough Link cold front to cold front, and remove "negatively-tilted." The article is not supposed to be a journal article, and this wording resembles the TCR too much.
 * "Cold front" is already linked earlier in the article (and within the same section). As for the second part, I reworded the sentence to explain what "negatively-tilted" means.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Even while battling weak-to-moderate deep-layer wind shear and some mid-level dry air, an eye-like feature started to become evident on visible and microwave imagery, giving Epsilon a more tropical structure. This part is confusing. Is Epsilon resembling an occluded EC, or a hybrid storm, or a tropical cyclone? I suggest you remove "giving Epsilon a more tropical structure."
 * It isn't really confusing, IMO. The article explains earlier on that Epsilon already had a more hybrid appearance compared to what you'd normally see in a fully-tropical cyclone. However, I added more to the sentence and added another chunk to an earlier portion to make this distinction more obvious. I chose not to delete the said chunk because it is better to retain this level of detail, so that our readers can have the whole story.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * NHC upgraded the strengthening tropical storm into a Category 1 hurricane into → to
 * ✅. That was a silly mistake left over from one of my edits. :P  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunters Link this to the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron. Retain the link to the USAF for "Air Force". Also, add "the" before "Air".
 * ✅. This comment was a little confusing, but I added "the" before "Air Force Reserve" and changed the link for "Hurricane Hunters" from Hurricane Hunters to 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Hunters aircraft Redundant. →"The reconnaissance aircraft"
 * ✅.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The image to the left: Hurricane Epsilon as a weakening tropical storm south of Atlantic Canada on October 25 → "Epsilon as a weakening tropical storm south of Atlantic Canada on October 25"
 * ✅.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyvios: No blatant copyvios, but there is some close paraphrasing concerning the TCR in the first paragraph of the MH.
 * There really isn't that much copying overall, but I rephrased some portions of the first paragraph. Particularly, the most technical and potentially-confusing portions. Also, added the Public Domain template to the article (since the NWS's documents are public domain), so that resolves any remaining issues here.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Decent article overall. Destroyer (Alternate account) 20:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Final

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to ✅ this article. Congratulations on another GA! Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)