Talk:1997 Pacific hurricane season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1997 Pacific hurricane season 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.
Good topic star 1997 Pacific hurricane season is the main article in the 1997 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Season / Eastern Pacific  (Rated A-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season articles task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane articles task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

split[edit]

This article should be split up, and the western pacific typhoons moved into 1997 Pacific typhoon season. Jdorje

It says in the page that typhoons that form east of the dateline, Oliwa and Paka, are of interest because they are monitored by the CPHC. Also, please sign your name, whoever you are. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I forgot to sign it. And yes, you're right: however it might be necessary to make it more clear; AFAIK the "Oliwa" and "Paka" names aren't assigned until the storms pass into the wpac (if that's not the case, then I'm confused on how naming is done when storms move between these two basins, and that should be explained too). Jdorje 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oliwa and Paka are Central Pacific names. Both became tropical storms in the CPac and received names then but did not become typhoons until reaching the WPac. - Cuivienen 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo[edit]

The storms shouldn't be under the season summary section. There should be separate EPac and CPac storms sections I believe...though maybe it's better to keep them in chronological order. Also, the intro is weak since the first paragraph gives no useful information. Jdorje 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that CPac and EPac storms shouldn't be put in seperate storm sections... the two basins run together too much and that is what s done for other seasons. Elsewhere, I changed the lead and put the storms in their own section.
  • Is it possible to have track maps for each storm? Paka, Nora, Linda, and Pauline already have maps. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A class[edit]

I think this article is auperior than a plain Class B article. I'm not going to change the class, but it should be. juan andrés 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally we've been nominating articles for A-class on the wikiproject talk/assessment page. — jdorje (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Now, all needed is a todo section (obvously here, in the talk page) to see what this article needs to be an FA-class. juan andrés 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oliwa's intensity[edit]

I could not find a source that gave the minimum pressure for Oliwa, so I commented that part out when filling out its infobox. Does anyone know where to find that number? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Source is always the best-track document. For the pacific the really-ugly version can be found at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2004_epa.txt . This file shows not a single pressure measurement for Oliwa. So...there you go... — jdorje (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

29635 08/28/1997 M=21 11 SNBR= 672 OLIWA       XING=1      (CP)                 
29640 08/28*  0   0   0    0*1181667  15    0*1181671  25    0*1181676  25    0*
29645 08/29*1181681  25    0*1181686  25    0*1181690  25    0*1191693  25    0*
29650 08/30*1211695  25    0*1231700  25    0*1241706  25    0*1241713  25    0*
29655 08/31*1251720  25    0*1261726  25    0*1271731  25    0*1271736  25    0*
29660 09/01*1271741  25    0*1271746  25    0*1271752  25    0*1271758  30    0*
29665 09/02*1281764  30    0*1301769  30    0*1311773  30    0*1321777  30    0*
29670 09/03*1331782  35    0*1331787  35    0*1321792  35    0*1311798  35    0*
29675 09/04*1311806  35    0*1311817  35    0*1311830  35    0*1331845  35    0*
29680 09/05*1371860  35    0*1421871  35    0*1461879  35    0*1501887  35    0*
29685 09/06*1551896  35    0*1601901  35    0*1641922  35    0*1671935  40    0*
29690 09/07*1701947  45    0*1731957  50    0*1751966  55    0*1771974  60    0*
29695 09/08*1791982  60    0*1801990  65    0*1812001  65    0*1812013  75    0*
29700 09/09*1812025  90    0*1812038 105 0*1822051 125 0*1842065 140    0*
29705 09/10*1862079 140 0*1892092 140    0*1912106 140 0*1932120 140    0*
29710 09/11*1952134 140 0*1992147 140    0*2032160 135    0*2082173 130    0*
29715 09/12*2132186 125    0*2192199 125    0*2252213 120    0*2322226 115    0*
29720 09/13*2402239 105    0*2492251 105    0*2572262 100    0*2652274 100    0*
29725 09/14*2732285  95    0*2792294  90    0*2832300  90    0*2862303  85    0*
29730 09/15*2892305  85    0*2932305  85    0*2992303  80    0*3062299  75    0*
29735 09/16*3162293  70    0*3302283  65    0*3412269  60    0*3512254  45    0*
29740 09/17*3622238  35    0*3772216  25    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
 
So, I guess "pressure unknown" is what's going to stay there, huh? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw a value mentioned in the JTWC's report. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, on the JTWC Report's on the last page it says "MIN SLP 898 mb".

Peer Review (you can help!!)[edit]

I think this article deserves a peer review to improve it to FA. I think this article is very well done and it has all characteristics (in my opinion) of a Featured Article. I think that:

  • Text is well organized.
  • The article is written pretty nice.
  • It has tables that support the article [pretty nice table I think :)]
  • The pictures support strongly the article.
  • Templates synthesize all the information.
  • The article cites its references.
  • It has an introductory paragraph.

Since assessment, I think this article is ignored and needs to be peer viewed.

Sincerely, juan andrés 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the tables redone a bit. These were madeline's first tables, I think, and since then we've achieved a mroe consistent set of tables as seen in List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, and List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. Another potential/future table format, which you should give your opinions on, is in 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. — jdorje (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The table is fine, because it synthesizes all the impact information, but the problem is that is a little messy. I think a little bit of color would be fine. Now my question: What is it meant by "more consistent"? My first thought was that the table was obsolete. Maybe I'm correct mayebe not, so I wish the answer was specified. juan andrés 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that there is no table sorting storms by intensity, unlike in those other articles. — jdorje (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I got it! Thank you juan andrés 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a better idea! Why not to put the table on a new article called "2003 Atlantic hurricane season statistics"? Because the chart looks a little messy in the article. juan andrés 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are some difficulties with trying to get this featured... which will be hard to deal with. Such as whitespace between some of the sections on individual storms because of the size of the pictures. I'll try and reduce whitespace. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Elsewhere, whitespace problems are solved either by alternating the alignment of the pictures or by using {{clearright}}/{{clearleft}} instead of {{clear}}. Or both. — jdorje (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3 suggestions to reduce whitespace: Use see also links to the NHC archive, like with 2004AHS, expand on the entries slightly and edit the pics (Carlos could be cropped easily).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some info on evacuations for Rick. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that says Olaf caused 18 deaths in Guatemala and El Salvador, as well as a bit other Olaf impact. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Dartmouth Flood Observatory, Andres caused 4 deaths from its flooding in El Salvador. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

I am currently working on an external timeline in the manner of recent seasons. Should there be a seperate article, Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season, or not? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It would probably overwhelm the rest of the article, so I say yes. Titoxd(?!?) 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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 2005. 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) 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Depressions[edit]

If it is not possible to expand these sections further, please remove the infoboxes. The old section for depressions is commented out.Potapych (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • please link the terms in the legends (i.e. the categories)
  • the article would look better if the infoboxes would alternate left and right. right now it makes the article feel like it is missing important text because of the huge gaps.

Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the article is missing some information. Comparing it to 2003 Pacific hurricane season Featured article it seems some of the sections are a bit on the short side. It is understandable for a few of the depressions (which maybe could be merged into a single depressions section), but for the hurricanes I think there is more information that could be added from the TCR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the article should get rid of its references to knots. The WPTC uses only metric and imperial units. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You can remove the infoboxes for the depressions, but I wouldn't merge the sections. Stating things are from date formed to date dissipated and then stating the pressure and wind speeds five times for five storms is difficult to follow.
The reference section is missing the authors' names for each report. Use parameters from {{cite web}} if that template isn't already being used here.
Also, people should be aware that images that are cropped longer than they are wide will add more whitespace below the text. If you're using GIBBS you should crop them to a perfect square.Potapych (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed all references to knots, and converted the references to cite X. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles[edit]

I think we cad do pages for Oliwa, Andres, Olaf.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Evan, you don't have to go around to talk pages asking for articles. Somebody will get to it eventually. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thers i things i notice. You will find more about it next mouth.14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

I think this article is ready for FAC. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

It depends. I think the article could benefit from being reformatted like the 2006 season, considering how active and destructive the season was. After all, the current format is more like a list than an actual article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think it would be hard to call this article a "list", since it's almost entirely comprised of readable text. That said, I do think the 2005-format is ideal for more active seasons, but given the quality of the 1997 PHS article in its current state, I don't see it as a top priority to rewrite it. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The very earliest seasons, (like Pre-1900 Pacific hurricane seasons), regardless of basin, probably could be treated as lists. If we do do this one in the new format we'd might was well do other more active ones (like 1992) in the new format as well. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ill try the 1992 PHS rewrite after I bring this to FA. I have expanded the sections as indicated here. Should I nominate for FAC?

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)