Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [1].

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the slew of hurricanes during the disastrous 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Ophelia is a forgotten oddity. It took an incredibly erratic path along the Eastern Seaboard, coming tantalizingly close to land for eleven days and finally moving toward Atlantic Canada and its ultimate dissipation. While not a hurricane of major consequence, it had locally significant impact in North Carolina and resulted in four deaths along its path. I firmly believe this is the most thorough collection of information on Ophelia you will find. I combed through hundreds of newspaper articles, dozens of operational discussions, and dozens of scientific journals to arrive at the article you see now. Many of the journals had limited information or were incredibly detailed, beyond the level that would be useful in this article. After being a decaying Good Article for 13 years, this storm finally meets the level of detail expected of us. I hope you all enjoy the read and I'm looking forward to how I can improve this further. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • A lot of the images I can't confirm the source but will AGF
  • File:Hurricane Ophelia 2005 enlarged map.png — the stated source does not look like the backdrop actually used.
  • Lead paragraphs are inordinately long and would be improved with a couple paragraph breaks.

(t ¡ c) buidhe 04:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the source links for the three satellite images, NASA reformatted urls years ago so we have tons of these images with dead links I guess. The enlarged map is the Black Marble, working on getting an appropriate source link since it's a slightly diff version. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: The Black Marble map has been replaced by a much cleaner graphic made by TropicalAnalystwx13. I think that covers the image concerns. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're good here: pass (t ¡ c) buidhe 00:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • Link named storm in the second sentence?
  • Over the next week, Ophelia's intensity oscillated between tropical storm and hurricane levels as intrusions of dry air, varying levels of wind shear, and gradual upwelling of cooler waters from its meandering path impacted it. - I suggest simplifying slightly. I suggest changing "as" to "due to", and removing the final "impacted it".
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record at the time "by almost all standards of measure" - I think you either need to attribute this quote (like saying "as described by meteorologist Jack Beven"), or remove it. Since the sentence is just as accurate without the quote.
    • I can't attribute the quote to a single author as the paper was written by the entire HSU. I do feel it adds a bit of flavor to the section rather than just rattling off facts and stats. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) described the dual lows as a "complex scenario" and possible tropical cyclogenesis would be slow to occur. - I think the grammar needs to be improved for the second part, maybe even just adding "that" before "possible".
  • Link UTC, and maybe add a note explaining what time that is relative to local time.
  • I suggest splitting the first sentence in the "Fluctuating strength and meandering" section into two sentences, as you have two "with" clauses.
  • "convection became increasingly organized as it moved back over the Gulf Stream" - you never said that it moved away from the Gulf Stream, as the previous mention of the GS was that upwelling occurred "even over the relatively warm Gulf Stream." Maybe here say something like "as it moved back over warmer waters of the Gulf Stream"? Or that it moved away from its previous area of upwelling?
  • "During this time the storm made its closest approach to Massachusetts, passing 70 mi (110 km) to the southeast." - is it worth adding "Cape Cod" here?
  • Given the decent impacts in Canada, I think you could describe the track with a bit more detail with regards to its passage near Nova Scotia and over southern Newfoundland.
  • "As such, 462 dropsondes were deployed in the storm between September 6 and 17, the second-most in a single storm during 2005." - behind what storm?
  • You don't go into much detail about Bahamas warnings or impacts. Unless I'm mistaken, the article only says: "Winds at Freeport and Settlement Point reached 30 mph (45 km/h)."
    • For whatever reason it's incredibly difficult to find information in the Bahamas. The wind observation is all I could unearth, not event a news report of rain showed up in searches. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumping of water into Lake Rosalie was authorized by the South Florida Water Management District, but the pumps were unlikely to arrive in time. " - I'm not sure this is needed. The "were unlikely" part seems like it was a contingency plan that didn't end up happening.
  • "Secondary roads saw up to 12 in (300 mm) of standing water in poor drainage areas in the city." - just verifying, this is in Palm Coast?
  • "In South Florida, temperatures rose 3–5 °F (1.7–2.8 °C) above normal." - could you explain the relation between Ophelia and the temperature rise?
  • Maybe clarify that the missing SC surfer was presumed dead? You include that as a fatality in the lead, but don't spell it out so clearly in the impact section.
    • Adjusting to specify just missing since it was never explicitly a confirmed fatality.
  • "A one million gallon sewage spill occurred in Wilmington." - was this due to floods? How long did it take to clean up? This is the only part of the impact that left me wanting more.
    • I wasn't able to find much, just a more precise location and revised spill amount. The spill is largely overshadowed by a larger one just two months prior in the same spot. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eventually slated for demolition in February 2010." - so was it actually torn down in Feb 2010?
  • Nothing for Virginia or Maryland?
  • "On September 15, Governor Easley requested assistance from the South Carolina Government." - IDK how to make this clearer, but Easley was NC's governor, so maybe clarify what type of assistance was requested?
  • "President Bush signed this request October 7, designating ten counties as major disaster areas" - presumably the six from the previous sentence, as well as...?
  • "Senate President Marc Basnight and House Speaker James B. Black" - maybe specify that it's just the state government leaders?
  • In the see also, any reason you link List of Atlantic hurricanes? Also, I think you could explain why Arthur was included (similar impacts?)

All in all, this is a very well-done article, on par with any other featured tropical cyclone article. I just think there are a few things that need to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was able to address most, if not all, of your concerns. Many thanks for the review Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month on and despite additional interest still just the single general support. Unless there are clear signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next 48 hours or so I will have to consider archiving this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I am archiving this one. Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]

Hi, I will take a look at this and leave comments within the next 48 hours (probably a lot sooner but leaving myself some wiggle room). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) In general, these will follow the sections of the article unless a comment applies to the article as a whole.[reply]

Lead

  • Link the first mentions of South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Atlantic Canada.
  • The greatest impacts were felt in North Carolina where more than 240,000 people lost power and more than 1,500 homes were damaged. Consider a comma after North Carolina.

Background

  • Many of the records set during the 2005 season were subsequently toppled during the 2020 season which saw 30 tropical or subtropical storms. Is this really relevant to the topic here? It seems to me as off-topic.

I will add more comments later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclonebiskit, thanks for being patient. I'm taking a look at more of the article now:

Origins

  • Throughout September 6, the aforementioned MCS's Remove the apostrophe, this is improper grammar.

Fluctuating strength and meandering

  • This section title is kind of awkward, how about "fluctuation in strength and track" or something along those lines?
  • Early in the storm's lifecycle, meteorologists struggled with a track forecast that was "anything but straightforward" as models depicted a wide-range of scenarios for the depression. If this is a direct quote, there should be a citation at the end of the sentence in question, as far as I understand it.
  • High sea surface temperatures of 84 °F (29 °C) fueled bursts of deep convection throughout September 8 and following the formation of an eyewall and well-defined upper-level outflow, Ophelia intensified into a hurricane around 21:00 UTC on September 8 with sustained winds reaching 75 mph (120 km/h). This really ought to be two sentences, or be rearranged. There's a lot of information here for just one sentence.
  • this coincided with it regaining hurricane status for the third time. Coincident... You use coincided and coincident twice in a row here. Another word should be used in one of these instances.
  • Vertical mixing can be linked.
  • By 00:00 UTC on September 12, Ophelia weakened back to a tropical storm. How many times in a row had this happened by this point? It's hard to keep track without it being specified here.

North Carolina impact and extratropical transition

  • Link New England.
  • The ridge previously halting the hurricane's northward motion began accelerating off the New England coastline; however, westerly flow in its wake would not be strong enough to induce significant acceleration of Ophelia. Accordingly it began an "excruciatingly long passage" along the shores of North Carolina. I assume the second sentence is referring to Ophelia, but with the previous sentence talking about the ridge it's unclear as written. Suggest removing any ambiguity here.
  • Over the next two days, the hurricane's eyewall scraped the North Carolina coastline bringing hurricane-force winds to these areas. Is it worth mentioning and/or linking the Outer Banks here?

Research

  • I see you refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "the NOAA" here. My understanding was that in its acronym form it's simply known as "NOAA" without "the"?
  • Surprisingly enough, The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment exists and can be linked.

I will work on the rest of the article soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trainsandotherthings, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I was waiting for the nominator to respond saying these comments had been addressed. I just checked and my most recent comments have not been. I can go over the remainder of the article but I want to be sure the nominator will be responding to my comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I missed that. Fair point. Cyclonebiskit ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me Opposed to this nomination until/unless Cyclonebiskit responds to my concerns here. At present I do not think the prose is quite up to FA level. I see Cyclonebiskit has not edited since June 6th. Real life happens, of course, but FAC runs on a limited timeframe. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Trainsandotherthings: sorry for the delayed responses. Personal life things happened but things quieted down so I have time again. I've addressed the comments brought up above with the exception of one which I replied to. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I have struck the oppose. I will provide comments on the rest of the article shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have been having issues IRL which have seriously restricted my time and energy to edit for the moment. I will not be able to continue reviewing. My apologies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive1 § SandyGeorgia comments.[edit]

@SandyGeorgia: I've made the suggested changes. Thank you very much for looking over the article and handling the CCI! I'll be excerpting this into the main review page for the FAC coordinates to see these comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclonebiskit, have you addressed everything? (If so, could you ping Sandy.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to continue; IRL issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 12 June 2022 (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_Ophelia_(2005)/archive1&oldid=1093885289"