Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Rosa (2018)/archive2

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [1].

Hurricane Rosa (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After going back over Rosa during the past couple weeks and making a lot of corrections and clarifications, I have decided to renominate the article. NoahTalk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images appear to be adequately placed and licensed to me. I am not sure about the ALT text; IMO it should describe a bit what the image actually shows (e.g in the map image, that Rosa weakened quickly after its northeastward turn) per the first sentence of WP:ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For the map image, that would basically be the Met section all over again. In this case, I think the fact it simply says it is a map plotting the intensity according to the SSHWS is fine since the entire Met section is there to describe all the twists and turns, strengthening and weakening, etc. Are the other images fine? NoahTalk 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am pretty certain that ALT text for such a map does not need to be as detailed as an actual "Met" section should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: But what I am trying to say is that I don't think it is necessary to regurgitate the same information in a simpler format when it is already presented in the Met section. The map can be understood by what is in the Met section. All the reader needs to know is that the map is plotted according to the Saffir-Simpson scale. The rest is in the Met section itself. This hasn't been an issue with past FACs (which were promoted). NoahTalk 13:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Incidentally, pings don't work unless you add them as part of a new line; editing it into an already existing post is useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

[edit]
  • Why are there references in the lead? It indicates to me that the article is teasing me and telling me information that isnt in the main part of the article.
    Moved to the met and adjusted the wording a bit to accommodate. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please apply Template: NHC TCR url for the TCR URL, so that if the NHC decide to move the TCR URL's again we can correct them quickly and avoid dead links.
    Done. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your publisher is the United States National Hurricane Center not NOAA, Same goes for NCEI and WPC.
    Removed any mention of NOAA from the references. NoahTalk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6. This sentence is not cited and should be cited back to the TCR. Also how do you know that the wave was vigorous? NHC says nothing about it being from a vigorous tropical wave within Rosa's TCR.
    Hovmӧeller diagrams of conventional infrared satellite imagery showed a large and vigorous tropical wave moving off the west coast of Africa on 6 September, [...] Yes, it does. I don't think the sentence needs a citation now since I removed Helene. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wave spawned Hurricane Helene on September 7,[3] and then traveled across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity.[4] - The source provided [3] (An NHC advisory) does not mention anything about a tropical wave spawning Helene. I would also remove the mention of Helene since we can only prove that it was only assoicated with the wave and not spawned by it. I also note that you say that the system only moved across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity, however, the NHC doesnt say anything about convective activtiy but says little associated weather.
    Removed Helene and changed the wording to "minimal associated weather". NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to tell the reader what happened between September 6 and 19? For example when did the system move into the EPAC.
    Added info. NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: That should be everything. NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

[edit]

Lead:

  • deaths of one person – should be singular
  • The remnants also caused flash-flooding in Arizona, with several inches of rain falling in areas, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals – 1. change to flash floods, with the wikilink; 2. the sentence doesn't really flow well, the logical flow would be rain --> floods --> deaths. Also "several inches of rain falling in areas" sounds a little weird.
  • Flood damage from Rosa in the Southwestern United States totaled about US$50.5 million – from the impact section, 0.5 mil is from Baja California and exactly 50 mil is from the US? Please fix

MH:

  • Additionally, the depression was located in an environment [...] – relevance to storm? Maybe add in something like "which would favor intensification"
  • the system had a well defined center – add hyphen, should be "well-defined"
  • strong, well developed banding – add hyphen, should be "well-developed"
  • anticipating that an area of low pressure would form [...] Early on September 23, a broad area of low pressure formed – move the wikilink forward
  • On September 28, at 03:00 UTC, Rosa peaked – once the TCR comes out we can pretty much disregard all the operational stuff, so the peak should be at 06:00 UTC
  • I think when Jason Rees asked you to use the NHC TCR url template he meant for you to insert that in the url parameter, like <ref>{{cite report|...|url={{NHC TCR url|id=EP202018_Rosa}}...}}</ref>, not to replace the whole template.

Prep and impact:

  • State Unit of Civil Protection of Sonora [...] 19 municipalities in Sonora – move the wikilink forward since the agency isn't linked
  • swept away by flood waters – floodwaters should be one word
  • In Michoacán, it was reported that – reported by whom? A government agency? If the source doesn't mention, just remove "it was reported that" because it's unnecessary
  • 23 others from the Menegar's Dam community – there shouldn't be an apostrophe there?

A nice informative article besides the odd typo or choppy flow. Good work. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Everything should be addressed now. NoahTalk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support ~ KN2731 {t · c} 02:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • Rosa originated from a broad area of low pressure that the National Hurricane Center began monitoring on September 22. - I'm sure the NHC was monitoring the system before the 22nd (considering the NHC tracked it to the west coast of Africa)
  • Make sure you mention SSHS when you mention "Category 4 hurricane"
  • 'The remnants dropped several inches of rain in areas, causing flash floods, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals. - a peak rainfall total would be nice
  • Make sure you indicate 2018 USD somewhere in the lead
  • the wave entered the Gulf of Tehuantepec with the formation of a surface circulation and an increase in convective organization occurring around the same time. - this either needs a comma or some restructuring
    Added a comma after "with". NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a broad area of low pressure formed approximately 200 mi (320 km) south of Mexico. - Mexico is a big country.
    Is that better? NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the NHC reported that a tropical depression had formed - since the TD had a designation, I suggest writing out "Tropical Depression X-E"
    Okay. NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm and was assigned the name Rosa. - six hours later from what? The previous two sentences don't have any mention of exact time. Perhaps "Six hours after its formation"?
  • a solid mid-level ring and strong, well-developed banding - this is a bit jargon-y. Could you make it simpler?
  • On the morning of October 1, at 00:00 UTC, Rosa weakened into a tropical storm.[1] Shortly after, the system began travelling towards the northeast. - not to be picky (and yet that's what FAC's are for), but according to the track, the NE track happened while it was still a hurricane
  • "Twenty-four hours later, Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, with the NHC reporting that the remaining convection was displaced to the northeast of the system's center and that the circulation was becoming elongated." - could you rewrite this bit without saying what the NHC reported? The storm happened independently of whatever the NHC said, and since they're the source for the entire MH, you don't have to keep mentioning what they reported. The sentence would be a lot stronger if you said something like - "Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, after the remaining convection became displaced northeast of the increasingly elongated center". I don't know if that's too complicated, but I felt like you could trim some of the fat off that sentence.
  • At 11:00 UTC - what date?
  • 70 miles (115 km) - you rounded miles earlier, but not here
    Abbreviated. NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In total, damage to roads in the city was about MX$10 million (US$530,000). - the "in total" is redundant
  • After Rosa's passage, the governor of Baja California, Francisco Vega de la Madrid, issued a State of Emergency for the cities of Ensenada and Mexicali.[25] On October 3, an emergency declaration was approved for Puerto Peñasco - why is the last sentence on its own? Couldn't you include it after Ensanada and Mexicali?
  • rainfall was causing flooding in Arizona and Southern California. In San Bernardino County - I'd add "in the latter state" when you mention San Bernardino, since you mentioned two states
  • On October 3, a 26-year-old woman was struck by a vehicle and killed just north of Cameron after portions of U.S. Route 89 washed out from flash flooding that had affected the area. - the writing is a bit wonky. Could you make this sentence a bit simpler?
  • So the US impact section goes from state to state. I suggest reordering. You start the one paragraph "At Menagers Dam near Sells" with no state reference. It seems like a lot of the effects were in Arizona, not so much elsewhere, so perhaps have a paragraph dedicated to Arizona impacts? On that note, I think the $50 million in damage should be mentioned a bit sooner, since it's pretty significant.

All in all, a pretty good article. Most of my notes were concerned with jargon, or sentence structure, so my comments should be easy to address. Good work @Hurricane Noah:! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: How does that look? NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. I happen to agree with User:Hylian Auree below about some of the sentences being a bit choppy. Could you go through the prose with a fresh set of eyes and make the sentences shorter in general. Find fluff and cut it! My last comment - for the Arizona section, I think the car crash deaths should be mentioned next to each other in prose. No need for the dates, but they're both the same sort of storm effect in the same state, that's all. Also, I think the dam should be its own paragraph. I know I said put the Arizona stuff together, but you do have seven sentences for that dam, which is enough for its own paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I split the paragraph and changed it to "Sells, Arizona" so the reader knows the new paragraph is still talking about Arizona. The main issue wasn't regarding fluff, but me starting sentences with a data and time creating the choppiness. I will look and see if there is fluff. NoahTalk 01:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I can chime in here; I think Hink uses "fluff" to mean redundancy, which I did point out. I am happy to lend a fresh pair of eyes to the prose, though I will recuse myself from the voting process in that case. Auree ★★ 01:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated work, you two! I'm glad to support the article now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree

[edit]

Support on comprehensiveness, sourcing and style, with the disclaimer that I've considerably overhauled the readable prose in my copy-edits. A well-researched effort. I suggest finding at least one off-project editor to review the article for its accessibility and comprehensibility to the layman. Auree ★★ 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going solely on criterion 1a ("well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"), I am leaning towards oppose. Since I have taken up the role of primary copy-editor, the prose has been changed considerably; therefore, I leave it to others to assess criterion 1a.

  • Parts of the article, particularly the first paragraph of the lead, are quite knotty, with stubby sentences that read like proseline (e.g. "Later that day, the depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Rosa. One day later, the system strengthened into a hurricane" does not make for an engaging read). I recognize this is difficult to amend for chronologically defined meteorological events, but starting or ending most sentences with "On x date, ..." dulls the writing in what is supposed to be the most engaging paragraph of the article.
  • I recommend significantly trimming this paragraph, keeping only a succinct account of the most fascinating meteorological data (formation, development, path, peak, and demise).
  • Can I just say – you've implemented all the above suggestions with brilliant execution and understanding. The opening paragraph was actually fun to read now. Auree ★★ 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, there are several grammatical and stylistic glitches throughout the article (e.g. "The National Hurricane Center continued to track the disturbance for a few days as it moved westward and then west-northwestward, before developing into a tropical depression on September 25" - the current wording implies that the NHC, not the disturbance, was the one moving westward before developing into a tropical depression). I am willing to help on this front once the lead has been revamped.
  • Redundancy is also an issue. For example, "The remnants dropped up to 6.89 in (175 mm) of rain in areas." What does "up to" add here that isn't conveyed by omitting it; and "in areas" is meaningless without specifying which.
  • These are just examples, but about half of the article's sentences suffer from either one or more of the aforementioned gripes. The content looks to be in great shape, but the writing needs quite a bit of polishing to bolster the quality of presentation. Auree ★★ 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Before I start my own edits, I would like to discuss the opening sentence. I think "strong tropical cyclone" is a broad categorization and slight understatement for a Category 4 hurricane. Then, "strong tropical cyclone that brought severe flooding"... tacitly implies that Rosa caused the flooding at its greatest strength, which is not true. Also, I question the use of "severe" here since $50 million in damage is not exceptional for the US. I would like more emphasis on its unusual location, rather than its strength, since it peaked out at sea. Suggest something like "Hurricane Rosa brought widespread flooding to northwestern Mexico and the Southwestern United States as the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in Baja California since Hurricane Nora of 1997." How does that sound? Auree ★★ 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound better. I won't be able to make any edits until Sunday due to work, but I will have extensive time on both Sunday and Monday to fix some of these issues. NoahTalk 02:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has been implemented. NoahTalk 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented numerous changes throughout the entirety of the article. @Hurricanehink: and Hylian Auree, please let me know what you think. NoahTalk 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have been fruitful. I have given the meteorological history quite an overhaul to improve overall clarity and flow and reduce some technical and jargon-heavy constructions. Because of my narrow involvement here, I recuse myself from voting on 1a prose (but will vote on the rest of the criteria in due time). Auree ★★ 06:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one more comment before I'm ready to support. Can we provide some more info, both for context in the lead paragraph and in the impact section, on how Rosa's impacts were relatively minor because of its weakening and dissipation around the time of landfall? The Tropical Cyclone Report has a bit on this in its first paragraph. Auree ★★ 20:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hylian Auree: The storm and its remnants caused widespread flooding throughout northwestern Mexico, mainly in Sonora and Baja California, which led to one drowning and minor damage. The impact of Rosa in Mexico was relatively minor because the system had been significantly weakened by a combination of wind shear and cooler seas by the time it made landfall. That is the position of the statement in the lead. I made it the introduction to the Mexico impact as well. The next sentence is about rainfall totals. NoahTalk 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rereading the article while working on the Report del Clima source, something struck me... was the deepening non-tropical low that absorbed Rosa's remnants the same one that steered much of its movement as a hurricane? If so, that would be important to mention in the MH. Auree ★★ 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hylian Auree: Unfortunately, there is no way to know as the TCR doesn't mention it. I haven't seen any sourced saying it was. NoahTalk 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, because the current wording implies that they were separate systems even though reasonable assumption would suggest they weren't. Nonetheless, without a source, this hinges on WP:OR and so the wording should remain the same. Auree ★★ 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of Spanish sources by Hylian Auree

[edit]
  • Ref 23: backs up the claim
  • Ref 24: a) checks out; b) supports the claim
  • Ref 26: no mention is made of "the anticipation of severe flooding" – all they did was dispatch patrol and emergency units in case conditions would warrant evacuations.
  • Ref 27: a) has the rainfall total but does not support "caused severe flooding in Baja California"; b) supports "5.39 in (137 mm) of rain fell" but caution is advised here with synthesis of two independent sources, since the conjunction "after" implies a causative link that cannot be proven by either of the sources.
  • Ref 29: supports the damage claims, but as per Ref 27 b) a more nuanced mention of the rainfall total is needed.
  • Ref 30: misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the source material. The article mentions 10 million in (commercial) losses in just the port of San Felipe, which were due to lost equipment/supplies and a five-day commercial shutdown. No mention of road damage is made.
    Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: supports the claims. Further, a power outage is mentioned, which is content worthy.
  • Ref 32: a) supports flood and road claims (also mentions that 4 bridges were impassable), but states that the estimated rainfall "exceeded 100 mm" – avoid using "a total of" here and round up the inches instead; b) claim is backed up.
  • Changed to "at least"... my understanding is that rainfall "reached" 100 mm according to the source, but doesn't explicitly say it exceeded 100 mm. Idk why inches were even used here when it was a mm measurement. Switched it to 100 mm and set sigfigs to 1 per sigfig rules. NoahTalk 19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: checks out
  • Ref 34: yep

That's all Spanish-language sources. A few instances of misstated/mistranslated source material, one of which is egregious, but easy to fix. During my spotchecks I noticed that some of the citation formatting is awry or inconsistent, so please review this as well. Auree ★★ 03:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-do the ref fixes when I get home from work. I had to throw them out since I was edit conflicted multiple times. I saw several name issues and the archive date thing. Also, I do disagree with your one change as it made a statement vague. "Over the next days"... It needs something to specify the number. Was it a few days, several, or more? NoahTalk 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed that back so the reader doesn't have to wonder how many days the article is talking about before getting to the next line. All the reference inconsistencies should be removed now as well. @Hylian Auree: Let me know what you think about these items. NoahTalk 19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The references look better, but need a bit more for FA. See my source formatting review below.

Source review (formatting) by Hylian Auree

[edit]

Though this seems like a long list, most of the issues below pertain to stylistic inconsistencies. However, some of these sources require more, appropriately formatted information on grounds of verification and accessibility.

  • Refs 2–4: "NHC Graphical Outlook Archive" is not the title of these works, but the name for the archive that contains them. The confusion is understandable, as no clear-cut title is immediately apparent from the web page, so reasonable assumption and some craftiness is needed here. The reports are titled "Tropical Weather Outlook", but lack any numbering; in such cases, we may supply additional information for ease of differentiation, such as time and date of issuance (applying proper WP punctuation and formatting). For ref 2, an example of a suitable title would be "Tropical Weather Outlook [11:00 AM PDT, Wed Sep 19, 2018]". Further, we may add "NHC Graphical Outlook Archive" in the series= parameter to indicate that these reports are serial and contained in an archive. Finally, there appears to be some inconsistency between the publish dates stated in the reports vs. those given in the references.
  • Refs 18 & 47: The Arizona Republic is the newspaper of this article – azcentral.com is their website. Cite news, listing the newspaper, is the preferred template here. While inclusion of websites is optional, omit it here for consistency with the other refs. Same thing with ref 47 - tucson.com is website, Arizona Daily Star is newspaper.
  • Ref 27: "Reporte del Clima en México" is a monthly serial publication of climate reports, with different chapters and editors, volumes and editions, etc. It's a difficult beast to tackle, so I will handle this one, but do check my diffs for future reference on such sources.
  • Ref 28: links to a different article than the one listed. Also, remove "| The Weather Channel" from title field, since that's the publisher.
  • Ref 30: remove location for consistency with other refs.
  • Refs 32, 43, 45: these are newspapers and should be reformatted for consistency with the other newspaper refs.
  • Refs 38–40 & 42: same concept as I explained above for refs 2–4. "Storm Events Database" is the database that contains the event reports. Title needs to be customized for inclusion of distinguishing info. I would use "location" and "begin date" (i.e. "Event: Flash Flood in San Bernardino, CA [2018-10-03, 16:29 PST-8]"), since those offer acceptable differentiation between these sometimes very similar events. Use the series parameter for the database name.

Auree ★★ 05:57, 15 July 2019 (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_Rosa_(2018)/archive2&oldid=907743733"