Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Heather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Heather 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
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 29, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage?
Current status: Good article

B class?

[edit]

I don't feel comfortable grading my writing here, so I'd like someone else to take a look at the writing for B4. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: B4 is good, what I'm concerned about is B2, as there are no preparations. Try to search for that, and then report back. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll give it a shot. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had no luck, tried what I could think of to search for preparations. There might be some stuff in newspaper archives, but I don't have a subscription to any of them. There's also another source that could be useful at [1], but I'm not sure what's actually included in the source itself, and I don't know how useful it'll be; it's also paywalled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: that's fine. I upgraded it to B, btw, because the rest of the article looks great. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge collapses

[edit]

@Skarmory: I couldn't find any article specifically written about a bridge collapse in Amado but this one mentions one in Tucson and contains a picture of one "near Amado", unsure if they are the same bridge. [2] FozzieHey (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

I've downgraded this to C class given it's missing stuff from Stormdata and probably stuff from Google News. See my archive of old links for more. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential useful sources

[edit]

Just making a list of these for now that I cannot access:

  • Southern Arizona Floods of October 6–11, 1977 (should be very helpful, $47.00, accessible via TandF which I do not have access to)
  • Requiem for the Santa Cruz: An Environmental History of an Arizona River ($39.99 book)
  • The Frequency of Tropical Cyclones in the Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico (unsure how to get, also unsure how useful it'll be)
  • Seasonality, spatial coherence and history of precipitation in a desert region of the Baja California peninsula (I doubt this'll be helpful but I'm marking it here)

If anyone can access these, please update the article, as I do not have access to them as of now - I'll see what I can do myself later. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: Ask here. NoahTalk 23:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Heather/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • After some minor tweaks, the prose is at the GA standard. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Cites #5 and 6 appear to be identical (Tucson Citizen), combine.
  • Pass, no further issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • Does cite #9 (October 6th) have a headline?
  • What exactly is Cite #20 (Don Hogan) and why is it reliable?
    • Pass, see discussion below.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass, no issues with OR detected.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig not effective with these kinds of sources, hold for manual spot check.
  • Pass, none found by manual spot check of newspaper articles etc.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Cannot find anything else of note. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass, seems appropriate for level of damage and historical context, other GAs on similar storms.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass, no issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Pass, no issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • All images are fine and captions are good, though if a higher-quality copyright-free satellite image exists at all, it could be swapped in and that would be an improvement.
  • Pass, improved image found (see below).
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Skarmory (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Heather; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Skarmory: Good article. But i don't find the hook all to interesting. Is there another one that can be proposed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bit late, but here's an
ALT1: ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally-dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage? (Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00431672.1978.9931855; it's paywalled but I can email a scan to a reviewer if needed)
If that doesn't work (or some variation of it), I'm out of ideas. I don't think there's much for a DYK hook here, and I'm not that confident in my abilities to find interesting hooks. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A ping to Onegreatjoke. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: hook is alright. Though, you should fix the redirect of the santa cruz river. Also, you could just quote the sentence(s) that support the hook here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link to Santa Cruz River. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]