Talk:Late December 2012 North American storm complex/GA1

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

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm in the process of reviewing this article. I haven't made any decision yet, but I'll be adding comments as I go along. Here goes:

Overall, I feel the article has a couple overarching issues. The first is the article's attempt at sounding meteorologically advanced without an actual grasp on the meteorology. In other words, I see many extremely obscure terms thrown together in dubious order. Another is a lack of sources, and by extension a somewhat shaky account of damages. Also, the prose is somewhat weak, but that can be overcome once the content is good. Sadly, I don't think these issues are fixable within just days, so I feel I have to fail this GAN nom. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and happy new year to the author. Juliancolton (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is very awkward. It's trying to be both a descriptive summary and an historical marker, but it does the introduction more harm than good. Also, the mention of "severe weather" is vague; do you mean literally just the tornadoes?
 * Overall, the lead is short and not very informative. I would identify the most notable tornadoes, perhaps include a brief synoptic blurb, and talk about a little aftermath. Something for everyone.
 * Meteorologically, a strong upper tropospheric trough dug southeast into Texas from the Rocky Mountains on the evening of the 24th, becoming a powerful, negatively tilted shortwave trough at the 500 millibar (500 hPa) level on December 25. - This is overly complicated for what it's trying to accomplish, and in addition I don't think the given source backs most of it up. First, I wouldn't say "Meteorologically" but rather "synoptically" or the like. More importantly, the whole line is clunky to the point of probably inaccuracy. "Upper tropospheric" could simply be "upper-level", which is much more widely understood; the tilt of the s/w isn't particularly to the evolution of the tornado outbreak, so I wouldn't bother with it; and I'm really unsure about an upper trough becoming a s/w. I would definitely look into that.
 * Strong advection of warm and moist air near the surface occurred from Houston to Mobile and areas inland on the morning of December 25 as a synoptic warm front formed to the east of the surface low. - More examples. You don't have to talk about advection or the synoptic scale, where "Warm, moist air flowed northward along the warm front extending east from the surface low" would work fine.
 * I would make some mention of CAPE and any other major values you see fit.
 * Later in the afternoon, enough instability and ascent associated with the advancing shortwave trough allowed for the formation of discrete supercell storms ahead of the advancing squall line in Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and southern Alabama. - More showy language for little gain. "Instability and ascent" could be "energy". "Discrete supercell storms" should be much simpler, like "standalone supercells". Almost every sentence has this issue in the met. history.
 * "A mobile home lost its exterior walls two houses had trees fall on them." - ?
 * "McNeill Tornado on radar with a debris ball" - Most people don't know what a debris ball is.
 * For $140m in damage to Mobile, you should be able to build a much more solid and extensive section on impacts there. This brings me to my next point: the article is severely lacking due to a lack of NCDC reports. When they come out in several months, they'll likely have sheer pages and pages of damage info that you haven't seen yet. You don't need every report, but their absence is noticeable.