Talk:Tropical Storm Alberto (1988)

Assessment

Nice, that was quick. GA nominate it if you want.Mitchazenia 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

It's broad, neutral, and stable, but has problems with writing and factual accuracy. Because of this article's small size, though, it should only take a little while to fix everything, so I'll put it on hold. Necessary to pass GA:

• Article seems to contradict itself - the lead says that "Alberto developed from a trough of low pressure off of the coast of South Carolina on August 5" while the body says "on August 7 the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Alberto".
• The first sentence compares this storm to other "cyclones" - confusing for the novice reader - can we use one term here?
• "record longitude" - what does this mean?
• "lost its identity shortly thereafter" - surely this can be rephrased.
• "Alberto produced light rainfall..." - please merge this one-sentence paragraph.
• "Operationally, it was not classified..." - rephrase "operationally".
• "some clouds to western Newfoundland" to "some clouds in western Newfoundland".
• "for a system becoming a tropical storm" to "at which a system had become a tropical storm".
• "Additionally, a hurricane..." - sentence needs copyediting badly for flow and grammar.
• "Due to the lack of damage..." - please merge single-sentence paragraph, and cite it.
• "Impact and records" - renamed to "Impact and records broken"

Suggested improvements not necessary for GA:

• Wikilinks: "tropical storm", "convection".
• "Alberto resulted in brief durations" to "Alberto caused brief periods", perhaps.

- Merzbow 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. For the first thing, the tropical cyclone formed on August 5, but did not intensify into a tropical storm until 2 days later. Most storm articles do that, FWIW, and it doesn't really contradict. The first sentence compares this storm to other tropical cyclones, as Alberto formed further north than any other Atlantic tropical cyclone. Saying hurricane would be incorrect, as that implies winds of over 75 mph. I don't see what is wrong with operationally; that is just a term referring to in real time, so there's no real need in chancing it. I don't see what's wrong with the "additionally, a hurricane..." sentence. Generally, the WPTC doesn't cite when things don't happen. I don't think there is anywhere that says it was not retired, and I think the Wikilinks suffice regarding that it was used for later storms. Lastly, the title of the last section is just common practice in the WPTC. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK on first sentence and that section name, then.
• I made an attempt at rewording the "Additionally" sentence for clarity.
• Regarding the second sentence, when was Alberto given its name? When it became a depression on the 5th or when it became a storm on the 7th? The sentence as it stands now clearly implies Alberto became Alberto on the 5th.
• If you remove the "Due to the lack of damage" clause, you can get by with just linking the statement that "the name Alberto was not retired" to the list of later storms (as trivially verifiable), but the "damage" clause is analysis that should be attributed.
• I think "operationally" is superfluous (whatever it means), the sentence can get by just starting with "It was not classified". Or better yet, say who is doing the classification - "It was not classified by <blah> as a tropical cyclone until..." - I think this is more informative. - Merzbow 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the additionally sentence, though it's all the same to me. I'm surprised you are looking into the sentence about Alberto forming on August 5. The practice has been done for several other articles. Yes, it was not named until August 7 or so, although upon being named the storm is named for its entire track. It's really very minor. Regarding the operationally thing, I don't think it needs to be changed, as that emphasizes that occurred in real time, not after the fact. Saying "it was not classified by the NHC as a tropical cyclone until" would be more confusing than what is already there. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"upon being named the storm is named for its entire track" - if that's the case, then it's fine. I still disagree about "operationally", but it's a minor issue, so I'll pass the GA. Congrats. - Merzbow 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Record

Located at 41.5° N, Alberto became a tropical storm further north than any other Atlantic tropical cyclone since reliable tropical cyclone observation began in 1941. The previous northernmost latitude at which a system had become a tropical storm was an unnamed hurricane at 40.5° N in 1971. Prior to that, a hurricane in 1855 and another in 1858 were first observed at latitudes farther north than Alberto, but their tracks were incomplete and therefore not considered reliable.{{Easy Hurdat}}

I copied that from the article and put it here. This is per the recent discussion on WT:WPTC. Unless there is a reliable source who actually says the above, it shouldn't be in an article, since otherwise it borders too much on WP:OR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Because the "record" set by this storm was cited by HURDAT, it was removed. Thus, Alberto does not pose any real notability. There was only superficial impact, i.e. wind and rainfall statistics. The author, Hurricanehink, agree with my positions. Therefore, I believe that this article should be merged into the 1988 Atlantic hurricane season.--12george1 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, all around. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)