Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Otto (2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Otto (2010) 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
November 21, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Rainfall graphics have been created

[edit]

...and are located in their usual spot. I saw that San Juan is using a different time frame than I did for the storm total rainfall, which makes a few inch difference in the overall total. An e-mail has been sent. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Hylian Auree (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Otto (2010)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: intelatitalk 04:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be cool. I'll work on it late UTC today.--intelatitalk 04:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    please fix the diblinks to Grand Turk and Quadrant
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Nice variety of sources. Fix ref number 48 that link is a 404 error.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Easy to understand and clear
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images are PD, No problem there
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Fix the disambig links, and I'll pass it.
Fixed. However, ref 48 isn't a dead link for me... Hylian Auree (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27 actually. --intelatitalk 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I've fixed that now. :) Hylian Auree (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.Hylian Auree (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Some comments:

  • Hurricane Otto was a moderate Category 1 storm that caused widespread damage in portions of the northeastern Caribbean islands. - I feel like this is slightly misleading, since the time it spent as a Category 1 hurricane was well away from land, and near as I can tell most of the damage was done before the storm became a tropical cyclone.
  • The second sentence seems to assume the reader understands how TCs work. I don't think tropical cyclogenesis is the best link for "transitioned"; in fact, I think it's enough of a common word that a link simply serves to confuse the reader.
  • You have like two sentences of impact info in the entire lead, so it doesn't summarize the essence of the cyclone.
  • Although weak, the remnant surface trough persisted - Is this from the wave that dissipated, or the one that remained? I'm confuzzled...
  • as a near cold upper low - "Cold upper low" is a weird phrase, and I don't think I've ever heard it used that way before. I think simply "upper-level low" would suffice, since all upper-level lows are cold cored.
  • cloudiness and thunderstorms - Again, I think the link is more confusing than it needs to be... everybody knows what clouds and thunderstorms are
  • Based on this behavior, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) assessed a high chance of tropical—or subtropical—development within 48 hours. - Nitpicky, but I don't think the dashes are needed.
  • The MH seems dense in places. Words like hence seem really stiff to be honest.
  • classical - I think in reading some manuals of styles I've learned that "classical" has connotations of older, period aspects of society (classical music), while "classic" is used more as a substitute for "textbook" in "textbook case".
  • data obtained during a Hurricane Hunters flight revealed a weak warm core strengthening within the mid levels of the circulation—a feature present at the upper levels of tropical cyclones. - I have no idea what this is trying to say.
  • south of Bermuda - How far? Argentina is south of Bermuda... :/
  • the newly formed hurricane - I don't think you can really say it's newly formed, but newly upgraded.
  • At 0300 UTC October 9, microwave imagery showed the indistinct eyewall was open at all levels, signifying a reach of peak strength of winds - Having an open eyewall means nothing to 98% of readers, and even I wasn't sure how such an inhibiting factor could signify peak strength.
  • I don't think the see also section is really needed... you list two random links that you already use earlier in the article. Just stick the portal somewhere else.
  • Dead links:

Good work overall. Juliancolton (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Hurricane Otto (2010) to Hurricane Otto and Hurricane Otto (disambiguation) to Tropical Storm Otto (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Otto (2010) → Hurricane Otto – It was the only storm with the name to become a hurricane N-C16 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Hurricane Otto (2010) to Hurricane Otto (2010)♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Otto → Hurricane Otto (2010) – Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think we need to move this page back to Hurricane Otto (2010), as the 2016's Otto is expected to become a hurricane within 48-72 hrs, and could well be stronger then the one from 2010. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to do Requested move after Requested move - if Otto becomes a hurricane then we can move this article back without nessecerially going through the requested move process. Also remember we are not allowed to predict the future per WP:Crystal and that Otto may not become a hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is right. We don't need Requested moves, not when we have several administrators in the project. This adds a lot of extra work that no one really cares to do :P But, as there is a current storm named Otto that is threatening land, it is at least appropriate to move this article to the 2010 designator. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hurricane Otto (2016) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Otto (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Otto_(2010)&oldid=1211229261"