Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bret (1999)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [1].

Hurricane Bret (1999) edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria. With help from Cool3 (talk · contribs), I was able to get many newspaper articles that were published at the time of the storm and fill in gaps that on-line sources left for Mexico. All images already have alt-text and should check out as public domain as they're all from NOAA or the US Navy. All thoughts and comments are welcome, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff

  • External link 3 is dead. All others check out.
  • There are dab links; both are Mexican place names.
  • The infobox has good alt text, but it's not showing up in the Altviewer or in the page's resulting HTML source. Someone should check the box template or its parameters to make it show. Otherwise, the alts look fine.
  • Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.

--an odd name 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date? Even though the date is stated in the title of the article, it needs to be restated in the first sentence. You have a day but haven't followed it up with the year. This is essential and absolutely basic to the description of an historical event. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Am wondering if these sources might have some additional information that could be used Sasata (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Structural and Intensity Changes of Hurricane Bret (1999). Part I: Environmental Influences. Author(s): Lowag, A; Black, ML; Eastin, MD. Source: MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Volume: 136 Issue: 11 Pages: 4320-4333. Published: 2008
Title: A numerical simulation of Hurricane Bret on 22-23 August 1999 initialized with airborne Doppler radar and dropsonde data. Author(s): Nuissier, O; Rogers, RF; Roux, F. Source: QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY. Volume: 131 Issue: 605 Pages: 155-194 Part: A Published: JAN 2005
  • Both of those articles contain minor bits of information that do not add any useful information (or necessary) to the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Nice work. I've been doing some copyediting, but a few areas confuse me a bit. Some comments:
  • Not clear on why you cite one sentence of the lead but not the rest. Consistency is needed.
  • The lead should summarize the entire article's contents, and it currently does not. I think we need three paragraphs—one to cover the storm history, one to summarize preps, and one for a more detailed overview of the impact.
  • Texas State Highway 361 was shut down following the announcement of the Port Aransas closure. - Huh?
  • About 1,000 sailors working in anti-mine programs evacuated to the USS Inchon prior to the storm. - Again, huh?
  • Removed anti mine program since it's more or less excess info not related to the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to prevent anyone from re-entering them before the all-clear was given. - Find a more formal term for "the all-clear" perhaps?

More later. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportReview by Jason Rees MH

"Convective activity developed around the low, and by August 18 the system was over the Yucatán Peninsula." - Why not just convection?.
The first and second paragraphs are so short that i would seriously consider combining them.
Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear to moderate levels of vertical wind shear.
Sorted on IRC Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preps

Hours later, the watch was upgraded to a warning as the - How many hours later?
By August 22, - By to On
  • Don't want to be repetitive (it would be the same as the first sentence of the preceding paragraph) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Corpus Christi International Airport closed midday on August 22. - UTC EDT AST FST? Which one
  • All times in articles are assumed to be in local time unless otherwise stated Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three schools, two universities and one college were closed on August 23 and remained closed for several days - Six educational instutuions were closed
were in was deemed unsafe during hurricane conditions - were in was deemed to be unsafe during hurricane conditions

Impact and Aftermath

Seem fine to meJason Rees (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Jason Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems good content- and prose- wise. I'd suggest going through to ensure compliance with the MoS, but it seems like a valuable resource worthy of being assigned FA status. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs. Ugh, I remember this storm - my family ended up sleeping on the floor of my apartment for a few days. Not fun. Putting aside the bad memories, the article is in decent shape, with a few exceptions.

  • The impact sections are a mix of high-level information and excessive detail. Is it important to know that 7 families were evacuated in one Mexican town (surely this also occurred in other areas)? Do we need to know about the RV and barn destroyed in ARansas County (compared to the $500k of damage in Corpus Christi)? This mix of detail and summary info may also be why the sections read more like proseline.
  • It's better. I still wonder if we care about traffic lights down in Nogales. It also still reads very much like proseline - is there any way to reword so we aren't bogged down in details?
  • Removed the traffic lights and merged that sentence with the preceeding one. Also, I'm not sure how to word it in the way you're requesting, it's not my style of writing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend wiki-linking to the Texas counties. Many people are likely unfamiliar with where these counties are located in relation to the rest of Texas, and that would give them a way to go check.
  • The aftermath section reads a little like proseline too. Can anything be done to make that flow a little better?
  • The historian/crazy nationalist in me loves this sentence Numerous homes in both nations were damaged or destroyed ..., but considering that the previous sentences were speaking of "Texas" and "Mexico" I don't think "nation" is the most appropriate word.

Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment: The aftermatch section is focused entirely on what happened in the US. Were there any significant steps taken in Mexico? Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no known actions taken after the storm from my research and that of Cool3 (talk · contribs). None of the newspapers published following the storm in Mexico noted relief efforts. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll strike this comment, but could you make it more clear in the first sentence that we are speaking of the United States actions? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27.88 inHg - I assume inches of mercury is an accepted unit, at least in the US?
  • Yes, it's used very often in public weather forecasts. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • car accidents caused by slick roads. - reads oddly to a Brit, can "slippery" replace "slick"?
  • Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear as it moved slowly and erratically due to weak steering currents over the system. - The two "due to's" left me confused
  • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tens of thousands of residents were urged to evacuate coastal areas and seek refuge in local shelters - the phrasing in the lead section makes it sound as if the evacuation was spontaneous, this implies that was not the case
  • I don't get the same interpretation from that, maybe another editor can comment on this to give their opinion too Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mexican government emphasized on the safety of residents in the city - I know what you mean but...
  • Well, in BE at least, I'm not sure you can emphasise on something. I would write emphasised the safety... or put an emphasis on the safety Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • destroyed a Recreational vehicle - if you keep this major incident in the article, change the capitalisation
  • any mosquitoes and other insects laid eggs in areas of built up waters, causing insect outbreaks. - what other insects? Apart from the mossies, it's unclear why the outbreaks of other insects actually matters if we don't know what they are. The source only mentions fire ants, which don't lay eggs in water, and are being displaced, rather than an outbreak.
  • Removed other insects since it's minor info and changed that part of the sentence to enforce the increase of mosquitoes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • areas of built up waters, - odd phrasing, what about "standing water" or "stagnant water" (or stagnant standing water?)? "Or still water"
  • "Bret brings mosquitoes, other Pests" - in ref, why is "Pests" capped? Speaking of which, it's difficult to see what your practice is for capitalisation of refs, seems to vary from one to the next
  • It depends on what the title of the actual article is, I go by the way they have it written. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think there are still some significant prose problems in this article. A few examples:
  • "... Bret established a north-northwest track under influences of a mid-level ridge."
  • "Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear ...". This is ambiguous. "It didn't strengthen, because of moderate wind shear", and "it didn't strengthen because of moderate wind wind shear", are quite different in meaning.
  • "By the evening of August 20, Bret was designated a hurricane in accordance with reports of 75 mph (120 km/h) winds by a dropsonde ...". Leaving aside the rather ungainly "in accordance", it wasn't the dropsonde (whatever that is) that made the report.
  • "... which was anticipated to bore the brunt of the hurricane".
  • "... leading to traffic jams and high winds downed power lines".
  • "About 10 hectares of cropland were destroyed by the storm." No conversion, and everywhere else in the article imperial measurements have been favoured.
  • "Damages to homes and businesses in Corpus Christi were estimated up to $500,000 (1999 USD)". Try "Damage to homes and businesses ... was estimated ...".

--Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have Malleus's issues been fixed? The prose looks passable. I've fixed the en dash for the Mexico border and a few overlinkings (esp. city, state—just the more specific item, piped, please). Tony (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some of that, but I'll leave the nominator to fix the conversion and the ambiguous sentence –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help JC. I've converted hectares to acres and put acres first. As for the ambiguous sentence, I've reworded it a bit so hopefully it now reads better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is engaging, well written and the images are appropriate and nicely formatted. I would prefer "before" instead of "prior to" (but there are only about 4 occurrences and this is a personal preference). I made one tiny edit to the Lead where I think "official" should be plural. Please check it. Lets hope we can get this FAC off the bottom of the list soon. Graham Colm Talk 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lean towards support - article is informative and appears to be comprehensive. Thanks for your efficient responses. My review has been fairly cursory and I'm no expert on the subject, but the article looks to be in pretty good shape generally and the prose concerns that jumped out from a quick read have now been addressed. The prose is a little rough in places. A few examples:

  • "In Nogales, heavy rains caused water to accumulate on streets, leading to traffic jams and high winds that downed power lines." - water on the streets led to high winds?
  • The word "damages" is used several times throughout the article but as Malleus illustrates above, "damage" appears to have been the intent.
  • As requested, an example: "the storm caused $[...] in damages." - this raises questions of both grammar and semantics, since storms generally cause damage while claimants may be awarded damages. The same questions arise wherever "damages" appears in the article. PL290 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that day, the storm weakened [...] and made landfall [...]. Shortly thereafter, the storm quickly weakened," - perhaps weakened further?
  • "seven people were killed by the storm, four in Texas and three in Mexico. Most of the deaths were due to car accidents caused by slippery roads." - given the second sentence, is "killed by the storm" accurate?
  • "Heavy rains were also associated with Bret," - presents rainfall as if introducing a new theme, two sentences after slippery roads caused car accidents.
  • "At around 7:00 pm CDT (0000 UTC; August 23), Hurricane Bret passed over Padre Island, Texas, with winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) and a barometric pressure of 951 mbar (hPa; 28.08 inHg), marking the storm's landfall." - it passed over the island, marking its landfall?
*I can't see a fix. PL290 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it will help if I elucidate what's troubling me about the sentence. This may be a meteorological misconception on my part, but I take it the passing over the island and the landfall are one and the same event? (If not, greater clarity is needed regarding how one "marked" the other.) Assuming they are one and the same thing, is it not a tautology akin to "Bush brought the car into the garage, marking its parking"? PL290 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landfall is only declared when the storm's center (or eye) strikes the coast. The eye itself is a very small portion of the overall hurricane, so while a storm may have passed over an area, its eye may have stayed offshore slightly. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying, Julian (we don't get hurricanes round here!). Point taken from Graham also; the head of a pin or the eye of a needle or hurricane... :) PL290 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three schools, two universities and one college were closed on August 23 " - perhaps "a college" is more natural?
  • "Bret produced a storm surge up to 8.8 ft (2.7 m)", whereas there was "Heavy precipitation, reaching 13.18 in (335 mm)" in central Kenedy County - I've not seen decimal feet before and I think consistent use of feet and inches might be correct, but perhaps this is standard meteorological terminology.
  • They're generally left in feet for storm surge and inches for rainfall. All official NHC documents have that style Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

  • The animaged gif is impressive, but distracting when trying to read. Would there be a way to enable it to be hidden by the reader when not required?

PL290 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the gif is OK, the one at the top of FA DNA moves faster. I quite like them. Graham Colm Talk 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to get rid of it and use preview just to review the section! Movement on web pages is not liked by all. I believe it's an accessibility issue too. PL290 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but I don't think the onus should be on the nominator or a condition of this candidate's being promoted that a way of turning the animation off should be found. This discussion should be followed-up elsewhere. Graham Colm Talk 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I'll leave the comment open anyway in case there are other comments or suggestions. PL290 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (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_Bret_(1999)/archive1&oldid=1088118290"