Talk:Hurricane Sergio (2018)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Sergio (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hurricane Noah. I will be reviewing this article. I think this might be the first time I've reviewed one of your nominations.

• I don't really see any problems in the lead section. The first paragraph is rather long and detailed IMO, but I can let that slide.
• "On September 26 at 12:00 UTC," - Wikilink UTC to Coordinated Universal Time

  Fixed Noah^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "located in a band approximately 110 nautical miles east of the center." - I don't remember where exactly the discussion took place, but this project agreed not to use nautical miles

  Gave the converted values. 125 miles and 205 km. Noah^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of the Meteorological history, I find it rather odd to start two consecutive sentences with "Twelve hours later...". Actually I would suggest changing the first one to something like "Late on October 5, Sergio began another period of intensification...", as you didn't mention a date in the last three sentences of the previous paragraph

  Corrected. Noah^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio made landfall near Los Castros, Baja California Sur as a tropical storm" - Comma after the state name

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio made landfall near Guaymas, Sonora as a tropical depression." - Ditto

  Same as above. Noah^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now, for the Preparations and impact section. The NCDC has more info about impact from the remnants of Sergio. For example, this contains more specific damage statistics about impact in Llano County, Texas
• In the references, the names should be formatted consistently. I'm seeing mostly last name first, but there are some with the first name first

  Should be fixed. I found 4 refs that were incorrect. Noah^Talk 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

All in all, not a bad article. Just make sure you finish these in a timely manner.--12george1 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will complete these over the weekend. I will be gone all day tomorrow. Noah^Talk 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: Everything should be fixed. Noah^Talk 14:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A-class review

This review is trancluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane Sergio (2018)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hurricane Sergio (2018)

Nominator(s): Hurricane Noah (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Sergio (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am hereby opening the page for Hurricane Sergio's A class review nomination as I feel the article is of good quality (I read through the article for the most part). Per the A-class criteria (which I looked at recently), this requires at least two impartial reviewers. Noah^Talk 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by TheAustinMan

✗ Not ready :: I think structurally the article is well-composed and the framework is certainly cohesive and sufficient in coverage. However, aside from minor stylistic qualms, there are contradictions present in the article and content which either does not correspond with or not well-substantiated by the citations provided. Because the A-class criteria notes that only minor style issues distinguish a featured article from an A-class article, the fact that some of the content in the article is unsubstantiated or contradictory suggests that Sergio isn't ready for the A-class designation. The following comments cover the start of the article and a bit into § Preparations and impact. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Endorse A-class assessment :: The qualms listed below have been resolved, and after reviewing the renovated version of the article, am moving to endorse an A-class assessment for this article. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• ^General While I don't think WP:FAC has harped on this facet in recent years, I recommend adding alternative text to images.^TAM
• ^General There should be a non-breaking space,  , inserted between the month and date and between measurements and their units. Examples include October 10 or 942 mbar.^TAM
• ^General You note twice that the old record of Cat. 4 hurricanes was seven, which was set in 2015. In both cases, you need not use the construction "which was".^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} Intensification then halted for about twelve hours... does not appear to be substantiated by the TC report, which suggests that the pressure continued to fall, albeit slowly, during this time. Furthermore, the mention of this in the meteorological history section disagrees with the timing. I suggest a more shallower word than halted.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} ...maintained peak intensity for six hours... isn't supported by the track data, which indicates a peak from at least 12 hours (06:00–18:00 UTC on October 4).^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} The lede's first paragraph seems to focus too much on intensity minutiae and doesn't note where Sergio was heading. No mention is made of Sergio's initial westward track and sharp curvature northeastward.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} ...on the Baja California Peninsula, and later in northwestern Mexico... – Seeing as the Baja California can be considered part of "northwestern Mexico", I suggest specifying where the final landfall was.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} Reading further, I see Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur and Sonora on October 13 as a weak tropical storm, so this exact detail is redundant in the lead. I suggest noting this just once.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} damages has a rather specific legal connotation and should not be used except when referencing legal compensation. Instead, "damage" should be used, and works as both a singular and plural form.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} The phrase ...US$2 million in damages, over a thousand school closures, and a few hundred evacuations due to severe flooding is a rather clunky sentence construction. It's ambiguous whether the initial subject (the landfall) or the subject raised at the end of the sentence (the severe flooding) caused the damage, closures, and evacuations.^TAM
• ^{§ Lede} Multiple tornadoes also spawned as a result of the increased moisture. – Given the various mechanisms for the formation of tornadoes, I'm not convinced that increased moisture is an accurate or precise explanation for the tornadoes developing.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} I understand that the NHC is public domain material, but you should still quote verbatim text. From what I've been able to tell, unquoted verbatim text appears several times in the meteorological history section.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} continued to track the disturbance for a couple more days – Seeing as the storm eventually became a long-lived tropical cyclone, I think this clause makes the inaccurate implication that the NHC stopped monitoring the system after those couple more days.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} There are four sentences in the first paragraph alone that contain some form of "on September...", and three sentences in the paragraph start with that phrase. You should rewrite the section to ensure better flow instead of the rather proseline appearance. While the following comment does not specifically refer to this line, remember that not every change in category needs to be mentioned.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Given that the starting location in the post-season review was nearly a degree away from the starting location of Sergio operation, I recommend using the Zihuatanejo reference distance noted in the TCR rather than the Acapulco reference distance noted in the first advisory.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} The second paragraph starts off with Sergio continued to gradually intensify... but since no mention is made of intensification in the first paragraph, the phrase continued to should not be there.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Link microwave data, shear, and other meteorological phrases a layperson may not understand.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} ...halted as northwesterly shear... – The source says it was northeasterly shear.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Sergio maintained its intensity for 18 hours – Given that the pressure decreased marginally during this time, it should be specified what intensity is referring to.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} The tropical cyclone report makes note of an eyewall replacement cycle but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} The reference associated with the phrase the mid-level ridge to the north had weakened, resulting in the storm travelling to the northwest only says that the ridge was expected to weaken and not that it did. ^TAM
• ^{§ MH} See my earlier comment about The storm maintained peak intensity for 12 hours before beginning to weaken..., which is disputed by the tropical cyclonre report.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} it was noted – Whenever possible, specify who or what it is. See WP:WEASEL for details.^TAM
• At 09:00 UTC, the cyclone began to turn due to a mid-level ridge that was developing to the northwest. Over the next couple of days, Sergio turned from the northwest to the southwest. – The same idea is expressed twice over with different details, giving the appearance that they are separate events. See if you can combine these sentences.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Without reference to the date, one sentence starts with At 09:00 UTC... and is followed by a sentence starting with At 06:00 UTC... in a very odd reversal of chronology.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} The references that follow ...a shortwave trough weakened the ridge to the northwest... neither mention the ridge weakening nor the trough being the cause of this.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Sergio began to weaken due to upwelling... – again, the associated reference only says that this was a forecast and not a recap of what occurred. Predictions should not be used as sources to describe what did occur, only what was expected to occur.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} Sergio unexpectedly acquired the structure of an annular hurricane... – the source suggests this possibility, but also expresses doubt, noting that this was only the "appearance" of an annular hurricane and noting that Sergio "may not have a classical annular structure". This discrepancy should be noted instead of stated as fact in the article.^TAM
• ^{§ MH} at 18:00 UTC, the system weakened to a tropical storm, due to deteriorating conditions – what were these deteriorating conditions?^TAM
• ^{§ MH} I'm not sure what material this source is referencing in the two sentences beginning with Around 12:00 UTC on October 12... that is unique from the TCR that is also cited.^TAM
• ^{§ P+I} The entire phrase beginning with Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur... and ending with downed trees and utility poles in Guaymas. is unsourced.^TAM

• Added a source for the rains and winds. Noah^Talk 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• ^{§ P+I} Syntactically it appears that ...houses and businesses suffering damage is the cause of the MX$40 million in damage despite the preceding sentence noting that there were downed trees and utility poles, too.^TAM

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• ^{§ P+I} The source cited in the section about thunderstorms in southern California does not associate the thunderstorms with the hurricane, implicitly or explicitly.^TAM

• CB added this and I can't find anything to back it up, so I have removed the material. The image he took may potentially be deleted as an orphan. Noah^Talk 05:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

-- TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the request for A-class as this article quite frankly shouldnt even be above C class at this point. I will use this indepth review to make fixes as possible over the next few days. Noah^Talk 05:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The article has undergone a massive facelift recently and thus this has been reactivated. Noah^Talk 23:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hurricanehink

• "Sergio gradually strengthened for the next couple of days as it traveled west-northwestward" - the track looks like it went west-southwestward. Why did it take that direction? You should mention that in the MH (not the lead) when you find out

  Fixed in lead and added a sentence showing the direction and why it moved in such a manner. Noah^Talk 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "After rapid intensification and an eyewall replacement cycle, Sergio peaked as a Category 4 hurricane on October 4, with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) as it tracked towards the northwest." - the motion here is irrelevant to the intensity

  Rephrased the sentence. Noah^Talk 21:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The system then began another period of intensification, achieving a secondary peak on October 6." - which was?

• Added. Noah^Talk 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur and Sonora on October 13 as a mid-grade tropical storm" - the MH says that the Sonora landfall was as a TD. Also, I don't know how I feel about "mid-grade tropical storm". You could just say TS

• fixed. Noah^Talk 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "and a few hundred evacuations due to severe flooding" - the section of the article says they evacuated due to the threat of the floods. Which one was it? Did the evacs happen before or after the floods started? One is preps, one is more impact.

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 00:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "resulting in the closure of its state fair." - link here?

  Done. Noah^Talk 00:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Throughout Mexico and Arizona, no injuries or deaths were reported." - seems unnecessarily specific. You didn't say there were no deaths in California, New Mexico, or Texas.

  Made it a more general statement and relocated it. Noah^Talk 00:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'd add (per the TCR) in the MH the potential that Sergio originated from a tropical wave that left Africa on 9/13

• Discussed that it isn't certain, but rather a possibility. Noah^Talk 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasted on September 25 that an "area of low pressure would develop a few hundred miles south or southwest of the Gulf of Tehuantepec in a couple of days".[2] A broad area of low pressure formed "a few hundred miles south-southeast of the southern coast of Mexico" around 12:00 UTC on September 26." - could you rewrite the quoted sections? They're not really interesting quotes, and you could easily say the same thing with fewer words.

• Hope this is better. Noah^Talk 01:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The NHC later discussed that Sergio was indeed a tropical storm, but without an inner wind core." - I don't get the part "later discussed that Sergio was indeed a tropical storm." This part sounds important/relevant, but not the way it's written.

  See below. Noah^Talk 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Instead, the maximum sustained winds were located in a rainband approximately 125 mi (205 km) east of the center." - related to above - why?

• Made a comparison to other tropical cyclones with a link to the TC page. Noah^Talk 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio began to gradually intensify over the next couple of days, becoming a Category 1 hurricane on October 2 at 00:00 UTC." - what changed? Were there environmental conditions that allowed for strengthening?

• Clarified. Noah^Talk 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The storm had developed "a well-defined eye underneath a deep convective overcast with cloud tops around −85 °C (−121 °F)"." - again, could you lose the quote? It's a bit jargon-y for our readers

• Simplified. Noah^Talk 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio then began a period of rapid intensification, reaching major hurricane status by 18:00 UTC." - to our readers, what is a major hurricane

• Made it Cat 3 major hurricane. Noah^Talk 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Six hours later, Sergio peaked with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 942 mbar (27.82 inHg), while located about 825 mi (1325 km) south of Cabo San Lucas." - not to be picky, but it looks southwest, or SSW, not due south

• You're right... I forgot to add the "west" part. Noah^Talk 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "As a result, Sergio's structure deteriorated, "with cloud tops warming and the eye becoming ragged and less distinct"." - rewrite without quote

• Done. Noah^Talk 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "A mid-level ridge that was developing to the northwest caused Sergio to turn towards the southwest from October 5–6." - is this the same ridge you mentioned a few sentences earlier? If so, the ridge didn't develop, but rather "was building" would be appropriate

• Changed to faraway mid-latitude ridge per the TCR (was completely seperate one). Noah^Talk 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio unexpectedly acquired some annular characteristics on October 7, with the eye having doubled in size overnight.[14] The system weakened to a tropical storm on October 9 at 18:00 UTC" - what happened in between? Usually, annular means it maintains the intensity for at least a little bit.

• It weakened in between... This was a case of a non-classical annular structure. Noah^Talk 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Sergio made landfall near Los Castros, Baja California Sur, around 12:00 UTC on October 12, as a mid-grade tropical storm." - what strength?

  Added. Noah^Talk 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The storm made a second landfall near Guaymas, Sonora, around 18:00 UTC" - make sure you mention that Sergio crossed the Baja California peninsula and the Gulf of California

  Done. Noah^Talk 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Early the next day, as Sergio rapidly approached the peninsula, the tropical storm watch on the west coast was upgraded to a tropical storm warning. The watches on the east coast were also upgraded to warnings later the same day." - since these happened on the same day, could you merge these sentences together?

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• You explain yellow and blue alerts, but not orange alert.

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The Puerto Peñasco Municipality was heavily impacted, with a majority of the houses in the region damaged by flooding." - the city has a population of 66,000 people. Even assuming 5 people per home, a "majority of the houses" would total tens of thousands. Could you get a better number here? If it was indeed 10,000 houses damaged, I'm sure that would be noticed and reported by someone

• Officials went to tally up the numbers over the next couple weeks (business days). The updated total wasn't reported because Vicente and Willa came in and beat the tar out of the area. Noah^Talk 20:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• "However, there were no deaths or injuries." - seems odd where you placed that

• Just removed it. Noah^Talk 20:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In the Chihuahuan municipality of Nuevo Casas Grandes, heavy rainfall flooded streets and an unknown number of houses experienced flood damage." - we don't usually say "unknown number". Just say "heavy rainfall flooded streets and houses."

• Okay. Noah^Talk 16:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In Arizona, a Pacific upper-level low" - link to cold core low instead of LPA

  Done. Noah^Talk 16:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "1 in (30 mm) " - 1 inch of rainfall is 25.6 mm, not 30

• Changed, but exact conversions are wrong by the sig fig conversion rules. Noah^Talk 16:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your second note is odd. Why did you feel the need to write out - "Links to information regarding other road closures in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and the US$73 thousand damage total may be found in any National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) reference for Arizona."?

• Eh... removed it. Noah^Talk 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• It appears that high waves from Sergio affected Hawaii

  Added. Noah^Talk 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "About US$15,000 in damage was reported after 60 kn (69 mph; 110 km/h) wind gusts" - don't include knots. We always convert to mph and km/h

  Changed all to mph and rounded to km/h. Noah^Talk 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

All in all, a pretty good article. I'd focus on additional impacts in Baja California, and Mexico in general if you intend to take this to FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Baja California has virtually nothing else to offer, but I can add some more info from a source already included as well as the TCR. I will have to check for the rest of Mexico. Noah^Talk 01:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: All your concerns for the A-class assessment should be addressed. I will handle the minor BC addition/Mexico search tonight. Noah^Talk 23:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I support A-class now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

There is a typo in the "Meteorological history" section. Change upweling to upwelling where it says "After maintaining its intensity for 18 hours, the hurricane began to weaken around 00:00 UTC on October 7 due to upweling and a third eyewall replacement cycle." Also, update the URL to the "Upwelling" article. ScatteredThinker (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)