Hurricane Ava has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed September 23, 2008 Featured topic candidate Promoted August 17, 2024 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 14, 2007. Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Combine some of the many paragraphs and add a satellite pic (which was in the MWR), for starters. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're fast at rating! ;) Which paragraphs do you think should be combined? To me, each discusses one thing, which is what a paragraph is intended to do. Also, the MWR is a copyrighted publication. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't even rate it! :) The MWR might be copyrighted, but the images are a product of NOAA, which is PD. Nine paragraph for the last section is excessive, given most are one or two liners. Perhaps merge the third through eighth paragraphs? Some of the writing could be better; terms like "life" and "really" should be avoided IMO, but the article is a really good start. All that's needed is some cleaning up. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Juliancolton's fast! ;) I combined the two paragraphs about impact into one, but left the non-retirement one on its own. The records should now be four paragraphs, the shortest of which is a sort of "mini-introduction" and the remainder are longer. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words really and life have been written out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think some of the second section can be condensed, as well, and I think the sat. image qualifies as public domain. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 paras in the forecasting and observation section: one on forecasting, one on Skylab obs, one on satellite obs, one on aerial obs, and one on how the obs were all put together. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the MWR's satellite images are PD; I'm not certain that their being from an NOAA satellite makes them the NOAA's and hence PD; but if someone uploads a sat. pic. I won't nominate it for deletion or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a really good idea to not always use things like "kts" and "mb" for those of us unfamiliar with these types of measurements. At the very least, the first use of the measurement should be spelled out, with a wikilink so the industrious can figure out what's going on. Murderbike (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and have found the following issues:

• In the lead, it might be good to add citations.

• In "Forecasting and observation", there are several redlinks. Are articles going to be made for these redlinks? If not, de-link them.

• How could Ava have a large error if it was so well observed? Please clarify that.

• There are some one to two sentence paragraphs which should be combined.

• Remove the comma in the header "Impact, and record".

• In the See also section, remove Hurricane Hunters and perhaps add a link to the Tropical Cyclones Portal.

• What preperations, if any, were made in case of a landfall? Please add this to the article.

• I discovered some passive voice in this article. Please change The observations also provided confirmation that tropical rainfall can be produced by clouds that are not vertically developed very much. to The observations also provided confirmation that clouds that are not vertically developed very much can produce tropical rainfall. Also change Hurricane Ava was also penetrated by recon aircraft. to Recon aircraft also penetrated Hurricane Ava.

• The first sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat confusing. Please change it to Ava was given the most advanced measurement and reconnaissance available at the time.

• Do not say "Item and item and item", say "item, item, and item". I notice you doing this in "Forecasting and observation".

• This sentence: Ava remains the third most intense, as Hurricanes Linda and Kenna have lower pressures. is alo a bit confusing. Change it to Ava is now the third most intense, as Hurricanes Linda and Kenna recorded lower pressures.

If you resolve these issues within seven days, I will pass the article. Good job on making a good article, and good luck on resolving these issues! Shrewpelt (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LEAD#Citations says that:

• The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

• I don't see how any of the material in the lead is likely to be challenged after reading the article; all claims the lead makes are cited in the main body of the article. Yet if you still insist, I'll add citations.

• Redlinks removed.

• I made it clearer that the error was in forecasting (ie determining what the storm would do in the future) and not in observation.

• I combined the last two paragraphs in the forecasting and observation section. I don't think that combining the first with any is appropriate because its topic (forecasting) is different from the rest of the section's paragraph's topics (observation).

• Comma removed.

• A link to the TC Portal was added and a link to Hurricane Hunters was removed.

• After checking the sources, I cannot see any mention of a landfall. It seems to me that Ava never threatened anywhere with landfall.

• I removed the two instances of poassive voice you mentioned.

• The sentence was rewritten as you suggested.

• Superfluous "and" removed. The sentence now says "United States Air Force planes measured central pressure, air temperature, and humidity in the eye pressures using dropsondes."

• Sentence changed.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I looked at some hurricane FAs, and I found you probably don't need citations in the lead. Once again, good job! Miss Madeline, if you haven't already, you should review another GAN.Shrewpelt (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]