Talk:Tropical Storm Fiona (2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the writing is bad. I copyedited the MH up to it developing, but I couldn't go further without a complete rewrite.

  • However, it appeared that the system remained disorganized with just a few weak bands of deep convection embedded with it - it appeared? According to whom? And why the use of "however"? It doesn't contradict the previous sentence that much.
  • At that time, the NHC forecast that Fiona would not intensify as it was located within an environment of strong northeasterly wind shear and cooler water temperatures that had been upwelled by Hurricane Earl. - first, that is downright untrue. The NHC did forecast some intensification, to 45 kt. The NHC mentioned the possibility of lack of intensification, due to upwelling, but it was only that, a possibility. Also, you should explain why either the strong wind shear or the cooler waters would be detrimental to the storm.
  • 'Late next day, as Fiona neared the southern Leeward Islands, the Météo-France's Guadeloupe-Martinique radar nearby helped to identify the circulation of Fiona, which showed convection has been persistent near the center of Fiona, but also appeared to be slightly elongated. - Was the convection slightly elongated? Or was it the convection? What was "next day"? Whenever you start a new paragraph, you must identify the date. The mentioning of "radar nearby" is confusing. Grammatically, when omitting prepositional clauses and adjectives, it reads "Late next day, the radar nearby helped...". Also, you use the word "Fiona" twice, and it's rather long. Try re-structuring and splitting if you have to, to make it flow better.
  • Unexpectedly, an Air force Reserve reconnaissance aircraft went into Fiona and reported the minimum barometric pressure of about 998 milibar (hPa; 29.47 inHg). - the source doesn't say it was that unexpected. BTW, was the fact that the aircraft went into Fiona unexpected? In addition, that was only the first time you mention barometric pressure, so I really don't get the context of that sentence. However, if I read the reference, it shows a rather important fact that you missed, how the winds were stronger. There is another important fact from that reference, how several models expected Fiona to attain hurricane status, but the NHC steadfastly disagreed.
  • Despite the strong wind shear leaving the low level circulation center (LLCC) of Fiona exposed of convective activity, it reached its peak intensity at around 5 pm AST (2100 UTC) on September 1st with the lowest air pressure of about 997 milibar (hPa; 29.44 inHg). - generally the project doesn't use local time, and "milibar" is spelled wrong. You should emphasize that 997 is the lowest during Fiona's duration, since "peak intensity" could refer to winds or pressure.
  • After reaching peak intensity, Fiona started to accelerate toward the northwest, although a few bursts of convection occurred near the center of Fiona, the much stronger and larger Earl caused unfavorable upper level winds that makes Fiona unable to maintain its thunderstorm activities. - too many things wrong with that sentence to point out... same with the subsequent sentence.
  • On September 3, the storm's low level circulation center (LLCC) become rather elongated as it bypasses Bermuda and it began to rapidly weaken. - I'll bite. Why the present tense?! More importantly, Fiona never bypassed Bermuda; it was forecast to go straight toward it. Also, you should avoid a phrase like "to rapidly weaken". It is called a split infinitive, and it is grammatically incorrect.
  • Fiona became a remnant low at around 11 pm AST September 3 (0300 UTC September 4) and National Hurricane Center (NHC) issued the last advisory for Fiona while it was located about 60 mi (100 km) south of Bermuda. - once again, you shouldn't mention "Fiona" twice, local times are unnecessary, and the structure is confusing, since it sounds like there were two distinct events (no more advisories as well as becoming a remnant low). I also noticed you never mentioned when it weakened to TD status.
  • Add citations for the statements that say "citation needed".
  • No more preps or impact? Here's a blog I found (can't use it) that said rains from Fiona caused flooding, due to the grounds being saturated from Earl. Seems like something to look for.
  • Likewise for Bermuda, was there *anything* else?

--Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

After some improvements, can someone please give an updated todo-list for the article? Thanks. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I think that because it caused minimal effects, no deaths, and minor impact. It violates WP:N. No impact really. Merge? Jeffrey Gu (contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No damage, minimal impact, little effects in general. There aren't that many news articles on the storm that aren't just rehashes of the NHC advisory. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any other thoughts on merging? I've copyedited the article, trimmed down the text. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you might as merge it at this point. It wasn't such as unusually storm, since it dropped less than 1 inches of rain in Bermuda, and that was just about all the impact. So unless there is more impact in Bermuda or the Lesser Antilles, I agree with Hurricanehink.--12george1 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Fiona_(2010)&oldid=1137269111"