Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Celia (2010)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [1].

Hurricane Celia (2010)

[edit]

Hurricane Celia (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a continuing effort to keep the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes featured topic alive, I've quickly brought this year's addition to the group up to higher standards fast. As with Hurricane Rick (2009), there was a three month period given from the date the Tropical Cyclone Report was published for the article to be promoted to GA/FA and added into the topic to avoid the topic being delisted. As such, I now present Hurricane Celia, a very powerful, early-season hurricane in an unusually quiet season (for the Eastern Pacific). Since there was very little to add to the article outside of the Tropical Cyclone Report, there is no need for further research and thus I've nominated the article for Featured Status. I hope everyone enjoys reading this article and all thoughts and comments about it are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the dead link and fixed the dab. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I see that all but one of the English sources are cited to one or other pages of the National Hurricane Centre. Most hurricane articles I've looked at recently have used a range of sources, including newspaper accounts etc. Is there any reason in this case for not looking beyond the NHC? Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The storm stayed mostly away from land, so there was minimal media interest in the storm. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, subject to that being OK, sources look all right, no further queries. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at it currently stands. There is no need to have 1,000 words, or 14.7 kb, on the met. history. That seems too long (ie failing FA crit. 4), particularly for a storm that isn't very notable. Also, why the local time? Most tropical cyclone articles do not use local time, since it is unnecessary for meteorological phenomena. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from your opposition to the article's length, could you list any other concerns with the quality of the writing (if you have any)? I would greatly appreciate any help you could lend. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You use the word "Celia" six times in eight sentences in the first paragraph of the lede, and not "Hurricane Celia" but just "Celia". What, are you friends that you can refer to her only by her first name?
    • "Once this shear lightened the next day" - you really shouldn't use phrases like that when it has been more than one sentence away from the last date reference. You do this in the first paragraph of the MH (Operationally, the depression was not warned upon until early the next morning).
    • It'd be good to mention some locations in the first paragraph of the lede, such as where it formed and peaked.
    • I think in the lede you should mention that it's one of X Category 5 hurricanes in the basin, as well as first since Rick. That's an important fact that might draw in more readers, so they don't think it's some generic hurricane.
    • I'd like if there was more explanation on why things happened in the MH. Examples:
      • "and little development was expected to occur"
      • You say development was anticipated within 48 hours, but then a few sentences later you said development was "expected to be slow due to moderate wind shear in the region of the low." So 48 hours is pretty quick for tropical cyclone development. I feel the flow is disrupted when you say this, then that, and then the next sentence say "Oh wait, it did become a tropical cyclone."
      • You mention major hurricane without any indication of what it is.
    • What does it mean for convection to wrap around the center?
    • "Satellite overpasses of the storm revealed that Celia had already begun developing an eye-like feature at the surface, an indication that rapid intensification may ensue." - fix the tense issues. You use past perfect in the first portion (had begun) and then present in the latter (may ensue). BTW, you should clarify that rapid intensification didn't happen.
    • The infrared satellite loop isn't working (unless it's supposed to stay on the one image in the article).
    • "by the afternoon of June 21, by which time" - could you change the wording so you don't have the "by" so often?
    • "During the late morning of June 25, Celia started a rapid weakening trend as it began to take a more northwesterly track into a more stable environment with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones.." - whoa, big sentence. Could you reorganize a bit? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although out of the storm's projected path, a precautionary alert was issued for Socorro Island. However" - why the use of however?

That's all I see. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the value from the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've gotten to all of your comments Tito, thank you very much for the review. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of extremely minor things left. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is impact from the storm. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal, though, and I believe the article could be better treated as a MH article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have longer article titles when we don't have to. I support this article being featured as the IMO it does not fail criteria 4a. I loved reading this article from the start and I have read ltierly 60 times since its creation. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning weak oppose based mostly on prose concerns

  • The Hurricane Celia disambig link should probably be in a template at the top of the article rather than in See also
  • Need some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity (and "impeeded" is not a word)
    There was some arguing about this here, so I'm not sure which one is better in this case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make the article as accessible as possible to non-specialist readers
  • "the storm rapidly intensified to attain its peak intensity" - repetitive
    Switched. RI is a specific technical term so I switched the second occurrence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "degenerated into a non-convective remnant low that evening. The remnants of Celia" - repetitive, and first part should be explained or linked for non-specialists
  • "waves from the storm prompted storm advisories" - repetitive
  • I won't go through any more, but read through and reword to avoid repetitive phrasing as much as possible
  • "in the region of the low" - the low what? You have not identified this as a region of low pressure
  • What do you mean by "operationally"?
  • "That evening, the storm further intensified into a Category 5 hurricane, the second storm to reach this strength during June in the Eastern Pacific basin on record" - "on record" should either be placed earlier in the sentence structure or removed entirely. Also, reword for clarity
    "The second storm on record" would be ideal, agreed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stacy or Stacey Stewart?
  • Ref 34: formatting should be in English
    Good catch, fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: check date
    It was in UTC, which made it confusing. Switched to local time.
  • Ref 26: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've only looked at the Meteorological History section and have only got a few minor suggestions:

  • "The precursor to Celia was first identified by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) as a disorganized area of disturbed weather associated with a tropical wave on June 5, 2010 off the western coast of Africa in the Atlantic Ocean."—The date in the current position reads oddly to me. Is it better after "first identified"?
  • "...the disturbance moved slowly towards the west-northwest and little development was expected to occur."—It'd be nice to know why little development was expected, but the source for that statement doesn't say.
  • "By June 18, scatterometer data..."—Which scatterometer?
    ASCAT on MetOp-A. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...however, it lacked deep, central cloud cover."—Development is related to deep convection, not central cloud cover. Central cloud cover is related to convection, but it's possible to have the cloud cover without the convection.
  • "...slow due to moderate wind shear in the region..."—moderate vertical wind shear, although this almost certainly implied
  • "...the system had become sufficiently organized for the NHC to designate it as a tropical depression"—As far as I'm aware, NHC doesn't designate a depression based on being 'organized'.
    There have been a few instances recently where the NHC has decided to not designate TDs based on insufficient organization (they say that organization is part of the definition of a tropical cyclone; see Tropical Storm Erin (2007) and its associated Tropical Cyclone Report at [2], Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the depression was not warned upon..."—Oddly worded. Better as "...there was no warning issued on the depression..."?
  • "...deep convection wrapped around the center of the system, prompting the NHC to upgrade the depression to a tropical storm..."—Again. Designation based on deep convection wrapping around the system? Seems wrong.
    It also has to do with the designation being based on the Dvorak technique, in which intensity is determined by the perceived organization (usually the amount of convective wrapping) around the surface center. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Celia had already begun developing an eye-like feature at the surface..."—Satellites can't see eye-like features at the surface
    I believe (I'm not sure) that has to do with microwave passes seeing an eye structure at low altitudes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random ponder: why does "central dense overcast" redirect to eye (cyclone)? I guess it's related to the outflow from the eye, and there is one sentence there.
    Mostly because no one has bothered to write a decent article on the CDO. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it failed to fully consolidate by the afternoon of June 21..."—"consolidate" seems like the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one offhand
  • "Only modest strengthening took place during this time as the system's outflow was being restricted by continuing easterly shear."—An over-simplification. Outflow was only restricted on half the storm, that's how they knew there was shear.
  • "A secondary eyewall..."—If it had a secondary eyewall, it underwent an eyewall replacement cycle, even if it wasn't noted in the discussions. You could pipe secondary eyewall to eyewall replacement cycle, since you already have eye (cyclone) linked plenty of times elsewhere. Hmmm, actually, the source doesn't seem to mention that this is a secondary eyewall, just that the eyewall was reforming.
  • ...indicating that the storm would further intensify once this feature further developed"—Quibble. Not all storms with secondary eyewall will intensify. Most do, but some don't. But referencing above, if it was just the eyewall reforming, the original wording would be correct.
  • "...allowing Celia to re-attain Category 2 status..."—no need for the hyphen in reattain
  • "...Celia started a rapid weakening trend as it began..."—'trend' is an unneeded word
  • ...into a more stable environment with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones..[24]"—True, but not in source. Dunno if it's considered common knowledge enough to not have a source. Also, two periods.
    Probably should be linked to tropical cyclogenesis, which should mention that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "as wind shear impeeded significant development." Is "impeeded" British English? If not, it may be a typo of "impeded".
  • Meteorological history: "with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones.." There's a double period, and the comma should probably be a semi-colon.
  • "Most of convection associated with the system...". Needs one more "the", I think.
  • No need for multiple Baja California Sur links in this section.
  • Impact and records: "This ranks it as the second-strongest June hurricane on record as well, as the eighth-strongest in the basin". Move comma to before "as well". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Celia_(2010)/archive1&oldid=1138463387"