# Talk:Hurricane Darby (2016)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Darby (2016)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 03:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article against the GA criteria. I'll start at the beginning and leave comments as I go along...

Darby originated from one of several low pressure areas that developed in the Eastern Pacific during July 2016 - Perhaps somewhat pedantic, but I think it's pretty much a given that several low pressure areas will form in the EPAC during the month of July. I don't think this provides any information that couldn't be boiled down to "Darby originated from a low pressure area that formed at/near/off <location>".
Changed. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You alternate between Oxford comma and no Oxford comma. Be consistent.
Everything should be Oxford comma now. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Linking "area of disturbed weather" to tropical wave is a confusing Easter egg link. Why not just say it was spawned by a tropical wave?
Reworded. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
strengthening into a hurricane just 30 hours after becoming a tropical storm. - This doesn't seem like an unusually short interval; I'd remove "just."
Removed. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Some jargon that could do with being clarified or simplified for our general readers: "stable air mass," "warming convection"
I swapped those terms for something hopefully simpler. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The lede says "numerous road closures", but the impact section mentions only one.
I've elaborated on the road closures in the impact section. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
A stream in Kalihi overflowed a nearby bridge and also inundated several upstream properties. - This line could be reworked a bit. "Overflowed" is a weak choice of words (surpassed? topped?), and one would think the flooding was downstream, not up.
I think the source meant that the properties were upstream of the bridge, but somehow that got mangled. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Despite the widespread flooding, there was no loss of life during the passage of Tropical Storm Darby. - The flooding discussed seems to be of a very minor nature, so I think think it's surprising ("despite") that no deaths occurred.
Rephrased this. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little disappointed that there's not more actual impact info, but I'll AGF that you did your research.
Found and added some more info about sewage spills and park closures. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Overall, it looks solid and seems to meet most of the GA criteria. Just a few minor suggestions for improvements. Placing the nomination on-hold for now, but I anticipate passing the article very soon. Nice work! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: I hope I've managed to clear everything up. Thanks for the review! ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks great - I feel comfortably passing the article now. Congrats! My one additional comment would be to briefly explain (or link, if appropriate) "brown water advisory," which I've never heard of until just now. I can guess its purpose, but still, seems like a rather obscure advisory. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)