Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Calvin (1993)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yellow Evan, I will be reviewing Hurricane Calvin (1993), a relatively rare landfalling July hurricane. As you've said yourself, due to my thoroughness in these reviews, please treat this as a mini-FAC. That being said, please do not dismiss errors as outside the scope of WP:WIAGA; since you said that you aren't planning any FACs soon, the qualms that you do not fix will most likely never be fixed. As always, thanks in advance. As general reminders, remember to add non-breaking spaces between numbers and their identifiers, and metric conversions for units, where possible. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "Continued strengthening occurred as Calvin turned northward, after originally heading westward. As Calvin was turning northward..." → This is all a back and forth section of prose that can be very easily simplified. Suggest changing to "Continued strengthening ensued as Calvin curved from its initial westward track northward, and was upgraded to a hurricane on July 6."

Background[edit]

  • "In an average July, a high pressure system is located over Texas, preventing landfall in Mexico." → Two things here. First, link high pressure system to the appropriate article page. Secondly, specify landfall by saying 'tropical cyclone landfalls', after all, landfall can apply to a number of storms and has other applications.
  • "However, a trough steered Calvin northward to hit Mexico as a hurricane in the month of July," → First, link trough. Second, we get it. Since you included climatological information for the month of July in the previous sentence and in the lead, I know for sure that everyone knows that Calvin occurred in July, so you should say something along the lines of 'as a hurricane that month.
  • Reference No. 1 says nothing about the climatological July, nor does it mention anything about the trough that was just indicated in the previous sentence.
  • Now that I read the following clause, it's apparent that the first part of the background needs reworking. I've provided the suggested wording as follows – "However, an anomalous trough steered Calvin northward to hit Mexico, making Calvin one of three Pacific hurricanes to strike the nation during July since record keeping began in 1949."
    • And I know I provided suggested wording on that last bullet, but if you wanted to reword it yourself, keep in mind that HURDAT did not begin keeping records in 1949. HURDAT was created in 1976, but data since 1949 has been kept in it. Make sure you make that clear.
      • what does that have to do with anything? Record were kept in 1949, just no database was created. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The wording still means that HURDAT was created in 1949, and has been keeping records since then. You need to be more specific and say that record keeping began in 1949, not that HURDAT began then.
  • Reference No. 2 says nothing about anything it supposedly sources. The word 'Calvin' (or Eugene for that matter) is not even mentioned once in the associated PDF. The only thing in the PDF that might source the information is just a map with dots and lines, and no names. I do not see how that is helpful and sourceful. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history[edit]

  • "Despite the lacks of concentrated convection..." → Only use the plural form of 'lack' in the present tense. In this case, and pretty much in all uses you'll use on Wikipedia, use 'lack'.
  • "...the system was classified using the Dvorak Technique..." → Again, common nomenclature would have 'technique' decapitalized.
    •  Done. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...while centered approximately 275 mi (443 km) southeast of Acapulco." → 275 nautical miles (as stated in the report) is not 275 miles. To be specific, 275 nautical miles is roughly equal to 315 miles. Be careful, nautical miles are not equivalent to miles.
    • Changed. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Initially, the storm was expected to stay offshore and attain winds of 60 mph (95 km/h)*." → The discussion that cites this part (Reference No. 3) forecasts for 60 knot winds, not 60 mph winds. Please do not assume that such measurements are equivalent next time.
      • It's a brain fart! Don;t you know me by now TAM :P 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...and banding-type eye formed in association with Calvin later that day." → First off, it's a banding-type eye. Secondly, Reference No. 4 does say an eye formed, but never specifies that it was a banding-type one. I think you mean to have Reference No. 1 there, since that does specify the banding eye.
  • "Later that day, the NHC reported that Tropical Storm Calvin had attained winds of 65 mph (105 km/h)*." → Since you use the subject/predicate combination of 'the NHC reported', you should have the associated advisory discussion in which the NHC reported that winds attained such intensity. If you want to just keep the EPAC HURDAT there, that's fine, but remove 'the NHC reported that'.
  • "Continuing to intensify, the system was upgraded to a hurricane at 0000 UTC on July 6 while becoming the second hurricane of the season..." → Three things here. First of all, Calvin did not become a hurricane while in the process of becoming the second hurricane of the season, it intensified into a hurricane and as such became the second hurricane of the season. Secondly, Reference No. 4 does not back this up, I think you need Reference No. 1 and the EPAC HURDAT reference for this one. Also, you should add a comma after 'season'.
  • ...and upon reading the next clause of this sentence I was completely confused because the second clause ends at an abrupt stop that would appear truncated at first glance. Allow me to revise it for you – "Around that time, Hurricane Calvin was embedded within the northeastern part of a large, monsoon-like deep-layer-mean cyclonic circulation, which stretched from the Intertropical Convergence Zone to the southwest Mexican coastline."
  • "Furthermore, Calvin was a fairly large cyclone as surface winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)* were reported nearly 200 mi (320 km) from the storm's center." → Two things. First off, 200 nautical miles ≠ 200 miles. Secondly, everything in this paragraph that seems to source the second page of the TCR is pointing to the incorrect page. So far we should've only been sourcing Reference No. 1.
  • "During the later morning hours of July 6, Calvin briefly slowed down before quickly accelerating to the northwest, bringing Calvin's center of circulation 90 mi (140 km) south-southwest of Acapulco." → Two issues with this. First off, it should be 'late morning', not 'later morning'. Secondly, both References 6 and 9 don't say anything about Calvin's CoC being 90 mi SSW of Acapulco. Please find a source that explicitly states such information.
  • "...as a ragged eye appeared in satellite images." → Reference No. 10 does not even say anything about the eye at all.
  • "At 1200 UTC on July 7, Calvin reached its peak intensity of100 mph (160 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 966 mbar (28.5 inHg)." → You should source the EPAC HURDAT here too, since the MWR does not say anything about the time at which peak intensity occurred (1200 UTC).
  • "Calvin weakened to a tropical depression late on July 8 as it made a second landfall along the extreme southern Baja California Peninsula." → Since you say 'along', be sure to say 'coast' after peninsula.

TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations[edit]

Impact[edit]

  • "Most of the casualties were due to flooding or car accidents on wet roads." → Reference No. 21 does not say anything about car accidents, or wet roads for that matter.
    • Tweaked before I uhhh. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nation-wide 42,063 people were evacuated from their homes.(Reference redacted) Additionally, at least 1,600 people were left homeless." → 'Were evacuated' implies that officials forced people out of their homes. In such case, they would be considered homeless, and as such we would have 43,663 homeless people. However, that is not the case. The report only says that people evacuated, instead of forcibly evacuated.
  • "In Puebla, a peasant died." → Two sentences later we get the fact that five people died in Puebla, so what's so what makes the peasant different than the others? What about the four others?
  • "In the latter, 11 deaths were reported as two rivers had overflowed their banks while in the former, five people died." → I know you are trying to differentiate Puebla and SLP, but these two states were not indicated in the same serial listing, so you can say former and latter.
  • "Moreover, six people, who were riding in a taxi died in Veracruz during Calvin." → You can make this sentence flow better instead of having the extra comma by saying "Moreover, six taxicab passengers died in Veracruz during Calvin."
    • Well, they could have been driving, so no. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Across Naryait, Calvin brought heavy rains to the state." → Again, another sentence with an unnecessary comma stop that can be made more concise by saying, "The hurricane brought heavy rains across Nayarit." Also, if you didn't notice, 'Naryait' is spelled 'Nayarit', plus it should be linked.
  • "While weakening, the storm also threatened ports such as Mazatlan along the Gulf of California coast." → Okay, great. Did it do something in Mazaltan? Because if it didn't, then it shouldn't even be in the impact section, let alone in the article at all, because 'threaten' is subjective unless preparatory measures actually begun there.
  • "Later in its life, Clavin struck the Baja California Peninsula, though the storm had weakened considerably by that time" → Needs a full stop. Secondly, be more concise, tropical cyclones aren't living things, so don't use 'life'.
  • "Offshore, 3 ships..." → Per WP:MOSNUM, 3 should be written out. It might be a continuity problem, but seeing as there is only one other number in standard form I would still think that 3 should be written as, well, 'three'.
  • "...were intercepted by the storm, but the ship sustained no damage." → This makes it seem like the storm was purposely chasing after the ship, after all, 'to intercept' is a purely on-purpose word. Use something like the ship was 'caught within the storm' or something to that effect, so that the implied meaning is that they unintentionally were caught in the storm, not the storm was chasing them.
  • "In all, the damage from Hurricane Calvin amounted to over 100 million new pesos, or $32 million (1993 USD, $42 million 2005 USD)." → You should link 'new pesos' to the 'Nuevo peso' subsection of Mexican Peso. Also, you should use the inflation template to update that inflated cost number – 2005 is quite old in online standards, :P TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not one of the costliest EPAC storms, so I removed it. And you've given me too many comments for me to do the first, change it yourself if you insist. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oaxaca[edit]
  • "Two rivers threatened to overflow their banks..." → Rivers don't threaten to overflow their banks. They either do or they don't. If they don't, no damage is caused, because, why would you have settlements in the river in the first place.
Guerrero[edit]
  • "Although the city escaped significant damage,..." → Reference 35 does not say that Acapulco escaped significant damage. In fact, that news source was written as Calvin was approaching, so this doesn't support that statement.
  • "A mudslide killed a man and a son(Reference redacted) while three others(Reference redacted) one person was reported dead after trying to save his boat from sinking." → You start talking about 'three others' but never say anything about them, leaving a very odd sentence structure.
  • "One two-story hotel was nearly destroyed as all the remained undamaged after the storm was a swimming pool." → You ought to use 'that' instead of 'the'.
Colima[edit]
  • "The Instituto Oceanografico del Pacifico in Manzanillo reported a minimum central pressure of 994 mbar (29.4 inHg) in addition to the gale-force winds." → Since the I.O.P. is separate from the Mexican Weather Service you should say just 'gale-force winds' and leave out the preceding 'the'.
  • "State-wide, sustained winds of 60 mph (97 km/h) were observed at 1300 UTC." → You should say 'around 1300 UTC'. At 1300 UTC makes it seem like BAM! those winds occurred at that one time and then ceased.
  • "Shortly thereafter, near 1545 UTC, sustained winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) with gusts up to 45 mph (72 km/h) were reported in the same location." → The last location specified was 'state-wide', which definitely isn't very specific. You should mention Manzanillo again.
    •  Done. !!!!
  • "Offshore, several ships reported rough weather during Calvin's existence, with the Pacific Sandpiper reporting a maximum wave height of 44 ft (13 m)." → Once again everything is fine and dandy here but Reference No. 21 doesn't even cite anything in the first paragraph of the Colima section.
Michoacan[edit]
  • "Although initially not expected to pose a threat to the ship Betula,(Reference redacted) rough seas near Lazaro Cardenas caused all 4,000 t (4,000,000 kg) of sulfuric acid to leak aboard the previously beached cargo tanker.." → I think you're getting the wrong idea, because the situation described in this sentence and the last completely capsizes what happened. (Pun!) Here's what happened – the hurricane was a threat to the Betula, after all, the rough seas caused it to ground itself off of Lazara Cardenas. It was then that a towing operation failed, thus causing the ship's sulfuric acid cargo to leak . What you're saying is that Calvin was raining sulfuric rain on the ship, which wasn't initially expected to be of concern.
Jalsico[edit]

Aftermath[edit]

See also[edit]

That's it for now. I'll probably check over the LexisNexis sources when I have the time. Feel free to fix the issues I've already posted. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Calvin_(1993)/GA1&oldid=1158736006"