Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)/archive1

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) 12 April 2019 [1].

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018) edit

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC), Oof-off (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tropical Depression Nineteen-E, a tropical cyclone that caused significant flooding and several deaths throughout northwestern Mexico and several states in the Southern United States. I believe this article should be featured as it has complete coverage of the subject and is of a high enough quality. Noah^Talk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:19E 2018-09-19 1830Z.jpg - can we link to the source any better than a link to the homepage? A description of how to find it, if a direct link is not possible?
Source added Noah^Talk 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nineteen-E 2018 track.png - I don't believe this can be dual-licensed like it is, since PD would always override CC 4.0 SA. You may want to get a second opinion, but if that is the case, you probably want to notify the uploader and have them select the appropriate license.
Has been fixed. Noah^Talk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:19E 2018-09-21 1950Z.jpg - same comment as first
Added here as well Noah^Talk 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when the above is addressed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I will address these on Saturday. Noah^Talk 11:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: All images should be correct. Noah^Talk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose this is for my own edification, but which satellites does the data come from, and are they all PD? My assumption is that it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: The satellite for each image is shown on the base layer on the sidebar. Terra, Aqua, and Suomi NPP. The highest base layer active is the satellite data visible for said image. Also, the satellites are owned by NASA, so their data is PD. Noah^Talk 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, should be all good to go on this then. Kees08 (Talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink edit

Support - great work on the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the US section, it seems like you're trying to pad the prose a bit. It's just a bit on the superfluous side.
Tropical Depression Nineteen-E's remnant moisture also caused flooding in the U.S. states of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas after picking up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. - don't say "moisture" twice. People don't like that word.
changed the second mention to something else. Noah^Talk 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where's New Mexico impact? If it affected Arizona and Texas, surely it also affected NM.
"To the north" - is this north of Thatcher, or of Arizona?
"A person who was walking near the Pantano Wash had to be rescued after being overcome by rising waters." - this could be tighter
"Near Silverbell, it was reported that 3 feet (0.91 m) of water was running over the intersection of two roads." - why do you have to mention that it was reported? Why not just say that two roads were flooded?
"Approximately 2 to 3 in (50.8 to 76.2 mm) of rain fell along Sahuarita Road" - this appears to be the highest rainfall in Arizona that you mentioned, so this should probably be mentioned sooner. Could you give a location other than some random road?
"It was also reported that 1.56 in (39.6 mm) of rain fell in Tucson." - how come you mention this specific rainfall total?
"saw rainfall totals of up to 18 in (457 mm)." - the "up to" is what I'm not a fan of. You mention in the infobox the specific highest rainfall total in Oklahoma, which is more useful to the reader than "up to 18 in", which is a fuzzy number that isn't real.
Fixed most of the mistakes you pointed out, the New Mexico impact I will try to work on ASAP. Oof-off (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
were just under 16 in (406 mm). - I'm still not a fan of this. Could you just state what the highest rainfall total in Oklahoma was? Then I'll be glad to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Fixed. Noah^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see the article at FAC, and I think it could pass without too much effort. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I added what little I could find for New Mexico. The only thing NWS has for damages is a fallen tree. Minimal rainfall also occurred. Noah^Talk 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Ref 10: should give language (Spanish)
Ref 11: the title is given in English translation rather than the Spanish original. Any reason?
Ref 26: should give language (Spanish)
Ref 45: returns "site not available" message
Ref 47: ditto
Ref 48: returns "access denied" message

Otherwise, sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10 Changed to an entirely different format Noah^Talk 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11 has been fixed
Ref 26 already had the language marked
Refs 45, 47-48 I don't know why you are unable to access the websites. I was able to access all three websites. I did not have to pay for any of them. Is anyone else having the same problem? Noah^Talk 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 45, 47, and 48 work fine for me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like my lack of access was a local problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: All of these refs should be correct now.Noah^Talk 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yellow Evan edit

Support now.

"Tropical Depression Nineteen-E was a weak tropical cyclone that caused flooding throughout Northwestern Mexico and several U.S. states, and is the first known tropical cyclone to have formed over the Gulf of California." pick one or the other to use as an opener. Also why is US not spelled out? seems kinda strange? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the part about it being the first TC over the Gulf of California since the impact is more important. United States is spelled out as well. Noah^Talk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

". It then meandered to the southwest of Mexico for the next several days as it interacted with a trough, forming an area of disturbed weather formed on September 14." "forming" and "formed" is redundant but tbh "area of disturbed weather" AFAIK is just an informal terms I'd just axe that last bit altogether. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Noah^Talk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A surface trough developed over the Baja California peninsula on September 18." given how you invoke the term trough above, calling a surface LPA a "surface trough" is a bit unorthodox, even if extremely correct. I'd leave it as is but add clarification that the above trough was mid to upper level. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Noah^Talk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to mention 2018 USD at all given the title and the recency of the event? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Year has been removed from all mentions of money throughout the article. Noah^Talk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical Depression Nineteen-E formed as the result of an area of low pressure interacting with a tropical wave. Its origins can be traced back to a tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa in between August 29 and 30." in what chronological relevance does the first sentence have with the second? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just axed that first bit. Noah^Talk 03:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait till the MH to abbreviate NHC? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviated in MH and labeled as National Hurricane Center (NHC) in the lead. Noah^Talk 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting how unexpected 17E's formation was in the MH? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
has been noted. Noah^Talk 03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Around that time, the NHC noted that banding features" link to rainband. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Noah^Talk 20:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Torrential rainfall affected the Baja California peninsula for a few days before genesis occurred on September 19 through the system's dissipation.[11] The National Meteorological Service of Mexico reported that Baja California Sur received heavy rainfall. The southern portion of the state received approximately 2.56 to 3.94 in (70 to 100 mm) of rain, with an isolated value of up to 4.88 in (124 mm) being reported.[9]" you can probably combine the first two sentences with the third or form its own sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the second two sentences. Noah^Talk 04:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"more than 300 tons of mud, stones, and garbage were removed from roads in order to make them passable for vehicles.[14]" what kind of tons? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Noah^Talk 03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"14,000 hectares (34,595 acres) " why are units spelled out? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviated hectares and acres. Noah^Talk 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were no red/blue/green alerts ever issued? See tropical cyclone warnings and watches. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the green alert that was issued for the off-shore. Noah^Talk 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"causing washes of up to 2 feet (0.61 m) that left several individuals stranded in their vehicles.[29]" what's with the inconsistent spelling out of units? you abbreviate inches but not feet or hectares? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Noah^Talk 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, great job. Just a few minor mistakes here and there. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above issues should now be resolved. Noah^Talk 15:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cyclonebiskit edit

United States aftermath needed – Disaster declarations in Texas means there should be federal recovery efforts in the state. Please look through local emergency management offices for additional details. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: I can't mention this disaster declaration in the article. That report mentions severe storms and flooding over a large timespan. Since neither Nineteen-E nor a "dying Pacific tropical system/depression" were mentioned as having been involved, it would be OR to link the two. Noah^Talk 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look through local emergency management offices. I found a summary of the relevant event for Texas (incident period 9/21-22). With $250 million in damage there should be aftermath information. If this is lumped into other events, include a brief summary of the overall relief. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... Aftermaths are entirely new to me. Im working on Mexico aftermath right now. Noah^Talk 22:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit and Yellow Evan: Is that better? Noah^Talk 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: pardon the delayed response, been busy with work. Yes this is much better, well done! I'll go over the article to see if I have any additional comments shortly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Use {{|}} for rainfall totals and make sure to use proper sig figs using |sigfig=. i.e. If a value is reported as 300 mm, only have 1 sigfig for the inches conversion. Same goes for in to mm conversions. Add parameter |abbr=on for abbreviating and (in this case) use |disp=flip if the original measurement is in mm so that inches is shown first.
- I've made these adjustments to the rainfall table, please follow suit with these changes for the prose in the remainder of the article.
  - At least one of the values didn't match the source so I've corrected it. Please double check the values to ensure they're accurate.
- When using a range, the template can be adjusted to handle that: {{convert|50|–|100|mm|in|abbr=on|disp=flip}} for example.
- For winds, WPTC doesn't use the convert template with values reported by RSMC's due to the original values being in knots and us showing that in mph and km/h. However, convert templates should be used for measured winds.

Corrected the only measured value. Noah^Talk 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reorganized and fixed up the rainfall table. When you add class=unsortable to the top column, it makes that entire column unsortable which defeats the purpose of making the table sortable. Having them organized by region is preferable over amount to reduce coding redundancy and the sortable takes care of having it highest to lowest.
- When using numbers in a table, be sure to use {{|}} for standalone values and add |sortable=on to the convert template.

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Should be all fixed. Noah^Talk 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: How are you feeling about the state of the article now? Any additional comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: all my concerns are addressed, happy to support and open the gates to promotion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank edit

"Damages" means money awarded in some lawsuits. "Damage" is the word you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, damages is correct (lead and US opener). As there were multiple floods, it would be damages instead of damage in order to have quanity agreement. There were a couple instances in the Sinaloa section and one in the US section that were incorrect and have been corrected.
Look it up in any dictionary, or look at other articles WPTC has written. This is bad enough to warrant an oppose until it's fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rewording for those two usages better? Noah^Talk 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow; it still says "minor damages". Do you say "precipitations"? "inflations"? "Two damages were done"? "Damage" isn't a count noun (in this context), and doesn't have a plural form. "damages" is a common word with a completely different meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I missed that one. I had changed multiple earlier, but must have overlooked it. Happens after being awake for 20 hours. Noah^Talk 04:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No longer opposing, but please search for "damages" throughout and replace them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a search on the article (someone showed me a feature for running an automated search). Should be completely eliminated. Noah^Talk 04:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope what I said was helpful ... if not, don't worry about it, it's not that important. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

35 mph (55 km/h): 35 doesn't convert to 55, and 55 doesn't convert to 35. Do you have a more precise figure? - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that this is not a spot on value. The regional specialized meteorological center, the National Hurricane Center, measures winds in knots as presented here. They also issue advisories for the public which have wind values in mph and km/h as shown here. Basically, the NHC measures winds in knots and rounds to the nearest increment of 5. They then convert the knots to mph and km/h and round those to the nearest increment of 5. As the NHC has been given its authority by the World Meteorological Organization, those values are correct. Noah^Talk 03:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the blurb, I'll list those as the reported figures. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else. Noah^Talk 03:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I had. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:29, 12 April 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.