Talk:1990 Pacific hurricane season

Comments

I can't get Polo's image. juan andrés 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What about this image of it as a tropical depression? It beats nothing. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have finally added Polo's paragraph. If I got something mistaken, or if it missed something, feel free to edit my changes! juan andrés 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the annon user that starts with 201.143... Remember, if you think that Polo's paragraph needs something, feel free to edit it! juan andrés 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Now Aka was added. I think the only remaining are the depressions. juan andrés 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's at least start class now. Sources are needed for the remaining sections, and depressions are needed as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

TODO

Expand the Season Summary and add the depressions, 4 Eastern Pacific and 1 Central Pacific. Add sources to these remaining sections juan andrés 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Depressions added. Only need to expand season summary. juan andrés 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Season summary expanded. If its there something missing you can put it here at TODO. juan andrés 02:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

checked and corrected spelling and grammar errors. Now what does this article need to bump it up to GA-class at least? juan andrés 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

copy-edit from Marie to Vance. 201.143.222.207 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

copyedit finished. I think this article is ready for GA-class. juan andrés 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nominee

Final revisions made to the article. juan andrés 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

1. Well written

• • Compelling prose - Neutral - Leaning towards fail due to a few quick examples I found. "A tropical wave that left Africa in late April emerged into the Atlantic Ocean on April 29." (doesn't it emerge into the Atlantic once it leaves Africa?) "1-E was" (avoid naming depressions by their number) "Shear increased and became bidirectional" (could be worded better) "The wave made an uneventful course" (do many tw's have an eventful course?). That's just in the first two storm summaries.
  • Logical structure - Fail - First, the lede is a bit... dull. I thought the project agreed that the first sentence should give a general description of the article, not the boring technical stuff. Second, the storm sections aren't in the best order. Most other seasonal articles (at least those that are FA's) have one paragraph devoted to storm history and one for impact, though multiple sections have a bit of impact in the middle of the storm history.
  • Manual of style - Pass
  • Technical terms explained - Pass

1. Factually accurate

• • References to all sources - Fail - Some important sections (ACE and summary) don't have references, and two storms have no references
  • Inline citations - Pass
  • Reliable sources - Pass
  • No Original Research - Weak pass - Some important sections (ACE and summary) don't have references, so they could be OR

1. Broad in coverage - Pass
2. Non POV - Pass
3. Stable - Pass
4. Images - Pass

Another problem, there are next to no metric conversions. For these reasons, I failed the GA nomination. Once these issues are addressed, it could pass, as it has a good base right now. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1990 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Right off the bat, the opening sentence is weird. Was that a leftover from a previous version of the article, or trying to combine two different ideas? Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph is a grammatical failure. Might I suggest rewriting the lede. For example, why is Boris listed after a sentence saying "Overall". Overall sentences are usually first or last in a paragraph.

I'm really confused about one thing. Was the season the 2nd most active or 3rd most active? If was 2nd most active at the time, I think you should avoid saying that and just say 3rd most active on record.

The lede is a little better, although the first sentence is a bit of a run-on now. You can probably get away with splitting the info on the length of the season into its own sentence. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Five named tropical cyclones moved over or very near Socorro Island located about 450 kilometres (240 nmi) south of Cabo San Lucas" - why is the mention of Socorro Island important? Second, there should be consistency throughout the article, as other sections have miles first, then km in parenthesis (none use nmi).

I'm assuming you fixed up other places in the article, and didn't work on the lede or season summary. Here are some other things that caught my eye.

• A few of the sections were hard to read because they were one big paragraph. Can you try and make all of the sections two paragraphs (if they're long enough)?

• Better. Norbert and Iselle are still on the long side (and could be split easily into two paragraphs). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Alma quickly strengthened and was near hurricane force by the morning of May 15. A few hours later, Alma was upgraded to a hurricane." - the wording is rather redundant. Is it really that important that it was near hurricane force on the morning, and by later was actually at hurricane force?
• Speaking of redundancies, the second paragraph of Alma uses the word "Alma" eight times in eight consecutive sentences. That's pretty poor writing, since at least one of those can be replaced by "it", "the storm", etc.
• "Weak steering currents caused the system to move erratically. However, Cristina moved generally northwestward." - is there any way that could be trimmed down? It's just an example of redundant wording making the article seem clunky.
• "Organization, which was not apparent previously with the wave, became apparent" - here's another example in the Douglas section.
• There are a lot of weird issues with commas being in weird locations.

• "It was downgraded to a tropical depression on June 7, due to these factors"
• "The low-level circulation of clouds of Tropical Depression Cristina, moved west-northwestward, with the low-level flow."
• "No damage or casualties were reported, due to Cristina."

• Africa and Pacific Ocean shouldn't be linked in every section.
• There are some weird rounding issues in the article.

• "at 85 mph (137 km/h)"
• "peak strength of 105 mph (169 km/h)"
• "with maximum sustained winds of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h)." (also, how come mph is spelled out?)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Refs are generally good, although I see one missing for the Hernan and one for the Iselle section. Also, the ACE section should be linked to the EPAC HURDAT, as well as a reference saying how ACE is calculated routinely. Also, it'd be great if there were some non-NHC sources. Unless I misread, every source was from the NHC or CPHC. Surely there is a news report or something that could be added for the land-impacting storms. I'd imagine Douglas would have some impact in a newspaper.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   First, a lot of the sections are really long, so it'd be hard for anyone to read the entire article. Compare with other seasons that are good. The meteorological histories are rarely that long, and I think part of the problem is the focus on what each tropical wave did in the Atlantic (which is unnecessary - a tropical wave is not the same as a Pacific hurricane). At the same, I noticed some details are missing, like in Agatha's section, you say it was impacted by wind shear, which prevented strengthening, but how did it quickly intensify to near hurricane force winds? IDK, I guess the other sections aren't really missing info, but that one stood out.

   It's better now. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to take a wild guess that you didn't write most of the article, since it doesn't seem like your usual writing. I didn't finish the whole article in reviewing, I just saw the same sorts of comments in section after section. It just seemed amateurish. I am putting it on hold for seven days, although you might want to withdraw it. Let me know if you have any comments.

   No, I did not write this article. When you reviewed it in late 2006, it indicated that the article was nearly there, so I tried cleaning up the wording, fixing the broken links, and making a GA run. This is an important hurricane season for the eastern Pacific basin. I'll endeavour to fix the problems you pointed out and convert to nautical miles, which is what NHC uses. I just had one GA failure for similar reasons (it involved more work than this article does), and don't want to make it two in a row if I can help it. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Fixed the Alma issues, and added references for Douglas and Rachel from the TC rainfall climatology (surprise). I think all the excessive wikilinks are gone and the text of certain storms has been trimmed, per your recommendation. Strike out what's been taken care of so far so I know where to go next. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I figured you didn't write it. Well, to be honest it wasn't that close in 2006, and GA standards have only increased since then. That said, now it's getting there, just some basic things to fix (rounding, referencing, etc). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

   The lead, Cristina, Douglas, Iselle, and Norbert issues should be resolved now. Didn't someone design a convert template that takes care of the rounding issues? If so, I'd like to use it for those few circumstances. I've had problems finding more than three non-NHC references, even using the google site used in the 1984 AHS reference section. I don't think it's helping that the two systems which neared land were only of tropical storm strength. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fausto, Genevieve, Norbert, and Simon still have ref issues, I'm not sure about the convert template, but that still needs to be fixed (the rounding and the abbreviated units). Also, I notice theire are some instances of nautical miles, which the project agreed to phase out and replace with regular miles. I checked Google news, and there are news stories on Rachel, Marie, and Trudy. For such a notable season, the lede should be longer. Also, not sure if it's worth noting, but Hurricane Diana was technically a tropical depression in the basin, and it could probably use a mention. I'm sorry, I just feel like there's a lot of work to be done still. There's too much track description in the article and too little meteorological details (what allowed storms to strengthen and weaken, what caused their tracks). As a result, I am failing the nomination. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If I had a bit more time to edit the article, I'd argue that there were still two more days left in the GAN period. But I don't, so I'll accept the failure. I'll try again in 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, leave me a message on my talk page concerning the web site to google news...because I'm unfamiliar with that site. You're right...Diana should be in this article (should have remembered that). Thanks for the review. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1990 Pacific hurricane season/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I can't be the reviewer, but I can make comments. Many of your edits used exact figures for mi, km, or km/hr, which isn't going to fly within the project. Everything should be rounded to the nearest 5, per project standards. This was one of the reasons why GAN wasn't attempted sooner by myself. Granted, the wording needed to be improved, but that was a simple matter compared to the units and rounding. I had mistakenly used nm (which NHC uses mind you), when statute miles (to the nearest 5) should have been used. I'd fix this before someone reviews the article, or it's going to fail all the same. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

However, I will be reviewing the article.

Nice article, but I have some comments.

• "Hurricane Alma became the third earliest tropcial cyclone since the satellite era began in 1966, while Trudy is the third strongest October eastern Pacific hurricane on record. Overall, the impact of this season was minimal." Check this record please. Is the record for EPAC or EPAC/CPAC? Does the record include storms prior to 1949?
  • Added it as EPAC record--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The season's tropical cyclones all developed from westward-moving African tropical waves. The season established several tropical storm records for this basin and was marked by several strong hurricanes." too many the seasons in a row, you might want to change one of "the seasons" to "1990" or "this year"
  • Re-worded on the earlier example--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Rachel was the only system to make landfall. One tropical storm formed in the Central Pacific and eventually crossed the dateline before dissipating" what dateline?
  • Changed to "International Dateline"--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Outer rainbands from the storm produced moderate rain in several Mexican states. Boris' remnants brought rain to the Southwest. Despite causing the wettest June in San Diego since records began in 1850, not even one in of rain fell at that location.[9][10] However, rain was reported as far east as Wyoming. The storm brought heavy rain to Utah. Boris also produced some rain in Nevada peaking at Lund.[11] In addition, The winds in the eyewall of Boris ripped off the sails of the Azure Dream sailboat. No other direct damages or casualties were reported from Boris." This paragraph could use a copyedit
  • Better?--12george1 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "A tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa on May 28. It crossed the Atlantic Ocean with minimal development as it moved westward" unrelated info, see second GAN.
  • Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Tropical Depression Cristina moved west-northwestward with the low-level flow." No need for "tropical depression" in the sentence.
  • Erased tropical depression--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "A tropical wave moved off the northwest coast of Africa on June 5. It continued westward across the tropical North Atlantic and Caribbean Sea without significant development" unrelated info, see second GAN.
  • Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "A tropical wave came off the coast of Africa into the eastern Atlantic Ocean on June 10 and 11. The system moved across the Atlantic and entered into the northeastern Pacific Ocean.[20]" unrelated info, see second GAN.
  • Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "After convection began to merge into the ITCZ, the National Hurricane Center discontinued advisories on Tropical Depression Six-E, stating that the depression dissipated, and regeneration seemed unlikely." What is the ITCZ? non-weather geeks will not know.
  • Unabbreviated and wikilinked the first use of "ITCZ"--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "A tropical wave came off the northwest coast of Africa on June 19. The wave crossed the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea," no need for this, if I were you i'd remove all of the similar sentences.
  • Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Hernan continued to strengthen and as it passed while 145 mi (230 km) southwest of Clarion Island, and 253 mi (405 km) south-southwest of Socorro Island." no need for two distances from one location.
  • Removed second distance--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• There are no distances in Iselle's section
  • Added distances to Iselle's section--12george1 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Due to its nearness of the hurricane to its west, the development of the depression was hindered due to vertical wind shear from the outflow of Hernan." "nearness" should be change to "close distance" IMO.
  • Switched words--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Tropical Storm Aka was the only tropical storm to form in the central North Pacific during 1990" Why is "central" is not capitalized.
  • Done--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• A track map is needed in Diana's section.
  • Added map--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• "A persistent area of thunderstorm activity southwest of Puerto Vallarta became better organized and strengthened into Tropical Depression 12-E on August 17"If I were you, I'd spell out "12-E" to be consistent.
  • Spelled out--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Any information from discussions could be use din Julio's section.
• "Vice-versa to later predictions, Norbert absorbed Tropical Depression Eighteen-E later that day." "Vice-versa" should be changed to "unlike".
  • Changed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Since there is a sub-article, extra details from Rachael's section could be cut.
  • Better?--12george1 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Any info form discussions available for Trudy?
• "The formation of Vance, the season's 20th tropical storm, made 1990 the busiest season since 1985.[1]" should be removed IMO as this is trivia.
  • Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

And this article is being passed. Congratulations. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2009_epa.txt
  • In 1990 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:51:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 1990 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-07 23:57:35, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing Storm

I don't know who overlooked this and passed the GA, but the season is missing a storm. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tropical Strom Rachel (1990)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tropical Strom Rachel (1990). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Tropical Strom Rachel (1990) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)