# Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Mitch

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Mitch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. Yay! Some comments:

I don't remember any of the specific guideline subsections, but I know the MoS frowns on bolded text being hyperlinked. In fact, if the title of the article is descriptive rather than definitive, it doesn't have to be bolded in the first sentence at all.
Switched around a bit, then. This also applies to the below (I think). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That said, the first sentence is worded weirdly (with perhaps some noun–pronoun disagreement).
Mitch slowly weakened while turning to the west over land, maintaining deep convection over waters. - this could probably be more clear.
Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Upon developing, Tropical Depression Thirteen was near tropical storm status. - "upon being classified"? Also, I would include "already" before "near", since that seems to stress the point of the sentence more readily.
True, it could've been a TC before the NHC said it was (and it's not like it magically pops into TC existence, as we know). I added "already". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
'At the time, the circulation was on the northern periphery of the convection while outflow was forming. - there are two very different ideas in the same breath here.
Moved the outflow bit to "near TC status".
A trough moving through the eastern United States weakened the ridge - which ridge?
The one mentioned in the previous section (which I now removed since it was redundant, now the first mention of ridge is in the 2nd section). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
By that time, the hurricane had begun turning to the west, due to a developing ridge over the Gulf of Mexico. - is this the same ridge already noted to have been forecast? If so, I would try to anchor the line down a bit by saying "due to the anticipated ridge developing..."
Well, the ridge was already there (jeez, a lot about a ridge!), but it just intensified to cause the west turn. Given that, I changed it from developing to intensifying. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It's up to you, but I would include parenthetically the ancronyms for the NOGAPS and GFDL, since I think those terms are more widely recognized than their fleshed-out counterparts (for better or for worse).
Good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The became less distinct, - normally I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure what was intended.
Oops, meant eye. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"Operationally" twice in as many sentences is probably not ideal.
Removed the second one, which works just as well now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Despite being over land, the NHC continued to predict a turn to the north - I get what you're saying, but the fact that it was over land wouldn't normally preclude an NHC prediction.
I guess I'm trying to emphasize that the NHC never really got the turn until after the storm dissipated. It was the slow movement over land that caused the catastrophic flooding. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
persisted over the Pacific Ocean - add "adjacent"?
Sure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
An approaching trough weakened the ridge in the western Gulf of Mexico, which allowed Mitch to turn to the northwest. - a little reworking is in order here I think.
I rewrote to say "long-intended turn to the northwest". Is that too biased/dramatic? Or does that work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
'On November 5, the circulation became elongated, and the NHC commented that "if [it] were not the remnants of Mitch, [they] would probably not be calling [it] a tropical cyclone. - I think this quote needs to be placed into more solid context. At first I thought they were admitting that they only continued advisories due to the storm's notoriety until I realized they were probably referring to its history of tenacity (?).
It is more the former. They wouldn't have classified it on its own had the system appeared in the GoM. The circulation dissipated over land, so as tenacious as it was, it did die eventually. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
within the cold front s/within/along
KK. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I did some copyediting for things I was too lazy or not eloquent enough to suggest here, FTR. Nice work! On hold for a while. Juliancolton (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hope I addressed your comments sufficiently. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)