Talk:Hurricane Hernan (1996)

Hurricane Hernan (1996) 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.
Review: April 24, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Todo

This article is nearly identical to the section in the season article. It needs more information and sources if it is demonstrate its need for seperation from the season article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC has plenty of info in their storm wallets. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... Do not merge this yet... i can only start improving next week Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it. This article could exist, but unless you're going to write it well I don't see a point to it. All the relevant information is in the season article ATM. — jdorje (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is almost word-for-word the same as the NHC report. It needs to be summarized, and probably expanded with other sources. Therefore, since it lacks adequate sources, it should be Start-class. Potapych (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should this article be merged? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the article, Evan, as it is one of the suggestions you gave me on my talk page. (click here to see what you said.) Jeffrey Gu (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that article would be better quality. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is way better than before. I viewed that page's history and, oh boy, the old article was not in very good shape. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it needs more work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly improved the article and therefore, I would strongly suggest keeping this article at this point in time.--12george1 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Great work 12george1! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hernan (1996)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

I will be reviewing this article for GA. Although I have discovered some problem with upgrading it GA, I will not flat-out fail it, unless no effort is made in the next 7 days. Below I have quoted portions of the article, which contain the the issues I have with passing the article. Press "Ctrl" and "F" and then copy and paste these quotes to easily find them in this article. Once you are finished, leave a comment on my talk page and I will decided from there if this article should be passed or not.

"Mexico on October 2, Hernan intensified a hurricane." ---> "Mexico on October 2, Hernan intensified into a hurricane."
- Done
"Hernan made landfall in Barra de Navidad, Jalisco with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." - Add a comma after the word "Jalisco".
"Cuyutlán, Colima indicated that Hernan executed a cyclonic loop to the southwest of Manzanillo.[11] About an hour later, Hernan made landfall near Barra de Navidad, Jalisco with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." - Add a comma after the names of the states of Colima and Jalisco.
"A tropical storm warning was issued from Acapulco, Guerrero to Manzanillo, Colima at 1800 UTC on October 1. Early on the following day, a hurricane watch was put into effect from Zihuatanejo, Guerrero to" - Add a comma after the words Guerrero (twice) and Colima (once).
"At 1500 UTC on that same day, a tropical storm warning was issued from Manzanillo, Colima San Blas, Nayarit." - Two things wrong here. First, add the word "to" between "Colima" and "San". After that, add a comma after "Colima".
For the impact in Texas, make sure you mention that it occurred (the remnants of Hernan) in combination with the Tropical Storm Josephine (1996). Example: "After dissipating, the remnants of Hernan, in combination with Tropical Storm Josephine, brought heavy downpours to southern Texas."
Done
"street flooding and forced several families to evacuated their homes." ---> "street flooding and forced several families to evacuate their homes."
Done
On Reference #16, the author is missing; it is located in the second paragraph of the "Preparations and Impact". Anyway, add the author parameter to the cite web template right there (|author=); after that, type or copy and paste "Associated Press" and insert it immediately after "author=".
Done
At the bottom of the page, add [[Category:Hurricanes in Mexico]]
Done

Not the reviewer: With all due respect, I believe the formal reviewer, 12george1, should disqualify himself from this article, as it is mostly his work. The qualifications for reviewing on WP:GAN clearly state the following as one of the reviewer criteria:

you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review;

Looking at the history of this article, the vast majority of it was written by 12george1: it went from 4549 bytes to 13658 bytes on November 24–25, 2011, a three-fold increase, and has had only minimal changes since then.

Can this article be reverted to a "to be reviewed" state, or turned over entirely to a second reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the second, and i'm happy to take over the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you let 12george1 know? I'm not sure what else would need to be done on the GAN page, if anything, regarding the change in reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I should have read all of the rules before I started. I thought it would be ok to review it just as long as I wasn't the nominator. So I guess if YE wants to take over the review, I will let him. But just so you guys know, this was all an accident and I was not cheating for points on the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you'll know. :-) There are doubtless a number of reasons why someone who has made a significant contribution to an article should not be the one reviewing. The obvious ones about conflict of interest aside, the reviewer will find the prose natural (for obvious reasons), and is less likely to see the flaws that would strike another reviewer whose prose style is somewhat different. Thanks for checking in, and glad it's settled. All yours, YE. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anyway, first things first JG, address all the above issues. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nwhit, on 12george1's talk page, claims to have done so a number of hours ago; I think it was done there in response to the "leave a comment" request up top. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ave placed

Done templates on what was done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: this review has sat for close to a month, the nominator hasn't addressed any of the issues or made any edits in the past month since nominating, and shows no further signs of interest. Unless you're prepared to fix the problems yourself, or find someone interested in doing so, I suggest closing it and letting it be nominated later by someone who is interested in seeing the article succeed as a GA.

Regardless, you should follow Wizardman's path: reclose the GA1 review (restoring Wiz's comment when you do) and start a new GA2 review under your own name, so it's formatted properly. Right now, this is considered a "malformed" review, because you've edited in the area specified by "and do not alter what is above" and messed up the formatting. (The official way to proceed when changing reviewers, I've discovered, is to close the current review and start a new one with the new reviewer by incrementing the review number on the article's talk page nomination template.) You can always copy in material from the GA1 as points to consider in the GA2, if you want to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am thinking about failing this article as not all of 12g1's comments have been addressed (thus, that's why I have not started .my own comments). If that is fixed, then yeah, I will open a second page with all of my comments. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit to the article was March 13. You dropped a note on JG's page on March 11 that he should have notified the primary contributor before nominating it. He's done nothing to the article since November. This GAN has been abandoned by its nominator, has had problems identified for nearly a month, and virtually nothing has been done to fix them. As the person who noticed the conflict-of-interest problems here on March 13, and who still sees unaddressed problems with the article as identified by the major author, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and fail this nomination. A new nomination can be opened once the issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hernan (1996)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yellow Evan. I will be reviewing Hurricane Hernan for GA.

Bot Checks

Script-bots hosted on Toolserver did not find any particular errors. Good work! TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (SSHWS)" should have an en-dash, not a hyphen, between Saffir and Simpson. Not necessarily a requirement for GA, but is actionable and should be fixed.
"...at 1000 UTC October 3," This sentence is missing an 'on.'
Yep. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Even though at least 100 injuries were recorded, though no fatalities were reported." Somewhat redundant, since there was already a mention of no deaths in Mexico earlier in the paragraph. Consider shifting the first clause to a different sentence. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the second that needs to go, and it's gone now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Meteorological history

"Meanwhile, deep convection began to consolidate while." This is a sentence fragment. While what?
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The cloud pattern continued to improve, and by late on September 29, classifications began on the system via the Dvorak technique..." This clause should be rewritten as "The cloud pattern continued to improve, and by late on September 29, the Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch (TAFB) began classifying the system using the Dvorak technique..."
- Why? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"By 0600 UTC September 30..." Again, remember to write on between the time and date.
why? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"...satellite imagery jad indicated..." Jad?
- It should not be there in the first place... Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"...over 285 mi (460 km) south-southeast of Acapulco." Just clarifying, did you mean that it was in excess of that distance or was over that area? If the latter, remove the 'over.'
- The former. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"...had became difficult to location..." Wrong use of 'location.' I think you meant 'locate.'
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"...until ninr hours later." Typo!
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"...1200 UTC October 2..." Same deal with the use of on. [Time] [Date] may be useful elsewhere but on Wikipedia you should use [Time] on [Date].
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...a minimum pressure of 980 mbar (29 inHg)." You should input this manually and not with the convert template since it rounds the inHg measurement to the nearest unit. This isn't really helpful as a rounded 29 inHg can apply for a pressure range of 33 mbar!
- It's still 29 inHg. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By 0900 UTC on October 3, based on data from radars in Cuyutlán, Colima reported that Hurricane Hernan had executed a cyclonic loop to the southwest of Manzanillo." Did the state report that? Based on the subsequent reference I think you meant the NHC did. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, though IMO either way is okay. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact

The image caption reads, "An image of stats for Hurricane Hernan's rainfall in Mexico" I wouldn't say stats since this isn't a chart. Denote that it's a map somewhere in the caption.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Thirty-six hours after formation, on October 1..." I'd omit the comma between formation and on.
- No, there is some rule, I forgot what it is called about this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Acapulco, Guerrero, to Manzanillo..." Manzanillo where? Manzanillo is not in Guerrero, so I'd add in Colima.
- Better issue I fixed: Why was Guerrero in there in the first place? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You link to the wrong National Water Commission, based on Australia. I think you mean to link to Water resources management in Mexico, since Conagua, which doesn't have an article, is the commission that you're looking for.
- Thanks for the link. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Because the storm made landfall in a sparsely populated area, no deaths were reported by the NHC" This sentence is missing a period.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to flooding caused by the storm, three rivers in Veracruz overflowed its banks." I don't think 'its' is the right term. You should use 'their,' since in this case you are describing it as a third-person plural.
- So, is it per this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Flooding from the storm also washed-out roads along two Mexico highways." There's a difference between roads along highways and actual portions of the highway. Based on the citation provided I'd go with sections or portions of two Mexican highways, and not adjacent roads.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"After dissipating, the remnants of Hernan, in combination with Tropical Storm Josephine,..." You should say the precursor to TS Josephine. Saying it was a TS at the time is a little OR; the reference only talks about a 'low pressure system in the Western Gulf of Mexico.' Either way it's still OR, but the suggestion I provided is more to the news source.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result of heavy rainfall, a flash flood watch and warning were issued for Cameron, Hidalgo, Kenedy, and Willacy Counties." The source for this sentence does not support the content. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, it was due to the url, actually. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane