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)
The table below compared the T numbers used in the Dvorak scale to hurricane categories. I don't see why we'd need to add this sort of information into the lead. The lead is meant to be a broad summary of the article below. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Must explain if hurricanes are included or not
I believe I have now addressed this. Remember that we can't introduce POV into the article, so I've tried to use more global terms. Tropical cyclones include TD, TS, and HU/TY/Intense TC intensities explicitly. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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).
If you want me to remove it, I can. Some people who review GA articles demand it, even if it is optional, as you say. Other references further down the article cover this. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
The last paper by Dvorak in the public domain is from 1984. Wikipedia does normally demand original sources. I have uploaded the two images on the right from the 1984 paper Option 1Option 2. An improvement from your perspective? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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"
See if the new section titles are favorable. I'm trying to avoid the terms Dvorak and technique in the section headers, per the Manual of Style. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Letter classification V -Z : The chart at top shows five different development lifespans: V to Z. Those needs to be explained in the article.
