Talk:Dvorak technique/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I can do this review. Can the nominator please reply and confirm that they are still interested in working on the article? --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments from reviewer
- Lead: must mention the more commonly-use "Level 1 to 5" hurricane intensity scale: compare and contrast with Dvorak (because readers, at least in US, will have heard the 1-to-5 frequently in the news reports)
- Lead: Must explain if hurricanes are included or not
- Footnote in lead: Why is footnote #1 in the lead section? footnotes are optional there, and all material in lead is supposed to also be in the body (where the footnote should normally be placed).
- No need to measure wind speed (fly aircraft into?) - I don't see a comparison of Dvorak vs other intensity schemes which require measuring wind speed. I would think that a HUGE point is that the DT is much simpler/cheaper/safer than flying a plane into a hurricane, etc. Maybe there could be an entire section in the article on "DT contrasted with other estimation approaches" or similar. I see that the section "Evolution" mentions a few other techniques: consider re-casting that section to be "other techniques" section.
- Define: "1-min Winds" in table: needs explanation
- Newer picture? - The chart at top of article looks important historically: the original 1973 technique. But its a bit crude. Doesn't the NOAA have a newer, updated version (public domain) that is cleaner & updated? The could both be in the article.
- Ambiguous: section title "Evolution" is ambiguous: does it mean evolution of the creation of the technique? or evolution of a cyclone as it develops? See also note above about changing the Ev section to be "comparison with other techniques"
- Letter classification V -Z : The chart at top shows five different development lifespans: V to Z. Those needs to be explained in the article.
- I'll pause for now. Go ahead and address the above as you see fit, then notify me on my talk page, and I'll do some more.
End comments from Noleander. --15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)