Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hilary/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2024 [1].

Hurricane Hilary

edit
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a hurricane that struck California last August, causing unprecedented flooding across the western United States. Hurricane Hilary was at one point a powerful Category 4 hurricane. It caused flooding across Desert Valley, which I actually got to witness firsthand, including an image (not the best, but still relevant enough to include in the article). It just passed its GA review (today actually), and I would love to get it featured by its one year anniversary. Enjoy the read, please let me know how I can improve it. Thanks in advance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

edit

Surprised to see no reviews yet, this looks interesting! Would be happy to review soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) - I actually forgot to put it on the FAC list until like last week. *blush emoji* ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operationally, NHC had tracked the two systems as the same, assessing that Hilary continued into southern California as a tropical storm,[6] which would have had made it the first tropical storm to cross into the state since Nora in 1997 - it's stated that Hilary was a tropical storm, but then says that it "would have had made it the first tropical storm... in the state since..."- these seem to contradict each other
  • Yea, the original assessment was that Hilary entered California as a tropical storm, so a lot of media reported on that fact as being the first TS to enter the state. It was only after the fact that the National Hurricane Center realized that it wasn't a true tropical storm in the state. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mexican government issued watches for southern Baja California Sur on August 17.[19] They were upgraded - the Mexican government was upgraded? The watches? I assume the latter, but best to avoid "they" when the direct object is what's being referenced here
  • School classes and public activities were canceled in Baja California, with a baseball game postponed - is the game notable enough to get a whole separate clause
  • The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation announced that all parks and facilities were closed for two days - because the department is doing the act of announcing something (present tense) the end of the sentence should be "were to be closed for two days (or at least, this makes more sense in my head)
  • They also truncated the August 19 runs - again, careful with they- I'd put Amtrak again
  • The US section is much larger than the Mexico section, and yet the hurricane landed in Mexico- any specific reason? If lack of english sources if the issue, consulting a Spanish-speaking editor would be helpful (I know some if you need connections)
  • I might need to look into this more, admittedly. But it was a weakening tropical storm when it made landfall, which is why the impacts weren't extreme. Even in California, the floods were more on the rare/unusual side than catastrophic. I'm going to look into this today and tomorrow when I have time (my folks are visiting me and my partner this week, so it might be until the weekend). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The strongest gusts were recorded in Los Angeles County – 87 mph (140 km/h) at Magic Mountain, and San Diego County – 84 mph (135 km/h) at Big Black Mountain. - I'm confused here- is 87 for LA county and 84 for San Diego? Right now, I associate 87 with San Diego because they are next to each other visually
  • Any photos of washed away roads available? Might be on Flickr or similar sites, but I assume such a major event like this would be widely photographed
  • Do you mean aside from the one in the article? I checked on Flicker, and I didn't see any freely accessible images. It would be great getting images in the San Bernardino/Coachella Valley area, especially of active floods, but the best image Wikipedia commons has is a street image in Los Angeles that isn't worth adding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about Mexico in "Aftermath"?

That's all I got, wonderful work overall! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, and I love the user name MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs)! I'll look more into Mexican sources, admittedly that's an area I might have overlooked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good- let me know when you're done! Best of luck, MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, update time! I found more for Mexico. It wasn't much. Hilary had some localized damaging effects. I added the number of power outages in Mexico, schools damaged in Baja California Sur, and details about people who lost their houses. Lemme know what you think of the additions - @MyCatIsAChonk:. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink The aftermath looks much better, but preparations is still rather small. Are there no more sources left? It's entirely possible that the media didn't effectively cover this event. If you need ideas, try newspapers.com for some local coverage. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Newspapers.com, but there really wasn't much to add. I added a little more about evacuations, and fleshed out some other details. Whatcha think @MyCatIsAChonk:? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it then- if there's no more, it's likely all good. Support now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) - not sure if it matters, but I goofed and didn’t put this FAC on the list until it was already open for ten days. I’m going to do a spree of reviews for other FAC’s, maybe that’ll help. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I missed that. Yeah, it helps. Get a couple of reviews under way within a week or so though will you? You probably know this, but from my boilerplate on finding reviewers.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article.

Driveby comment by Esculenta

edit
  • the "Hurriquake" is mentioned in the article, but not the scientific "proof" that hurri didn't cause the quake; see doi:10.32858/temblor.322 Esculenta (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added! Thanks for the reference, Esculenta (talk · contribs)! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12george1

edit

I am going to take a look at this article. I can't remember the last time I reviewed an FAC

  • "becoming post-tropical before being absorbed into a new system shortly after." - Maybe clarify that the "new system" was an area of low pressure? That phrase could refer to any weather system, including another tropical cyclone
  • "Damage in the United States were estimated at US$900 million" - Shouldn't it be was, or maybe the first word could be switched to "Damages"?
  • I went a step further and rewrote it as "The estimated damage total in the United States was US$900 million, much of it in Inyo County, California, where most of the roads in Death Valley National Park were damaged by floods." I felt like that succinctly captured what was responsible for the costs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operationally, NHC had tracked the two systems as the same" - I think that should be "the NHC"
  • "Portions of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-15, the Pacific Coast Highway, and other roads closed.[48][49][104][105] A nearly 48 km (30 mi) stretch of Interstate 10 (I-10) " - Why is interstate spelled out in the first sentence instead of the second?
  • "floodwaters reformed the ancient Lake Manly in what the usually dry Badwater Basin, lasting several months" - It looks like "what" is an unnecessary word here. You may have meant "what was" but that also might not be needed
  • There are several instances in the article of units of measure being switched around. For example: "including warm sea surface temperatures of near 30 °C (86 °F)", "the chance for 130 millimetres (5 in) of rainfall in the mountains of Idaho", "at an elevation of 1,949 m (6,395 ft).", "which grew to a length of 9.7 km (6 mi), a width of 4.8 km (3 mi), and a depth of 0.30 m (1 ft)."
  • I'm noticing that the refs have inconsistent name formats (last name-first name vs. first name-last name)
  • Speaking of that, some refs are missing names and a few have errors relating to that. For example, "Avitabile, Rafael; Feather • •, Bill"; "Now, Spaceflight"; "Staff, LA Blade Digital"
  • The TCR and 11th advisory are missing their publication dates (and author name for the latter). Check for other instances
  • Why are the titles of some Spanish sources translated into English, while others aren't? To remedy this, it might be easier to just use the Spanish titles

I think that's it. These are generally minor qualms and I am open to supporting this nomination if my above comments are adequately addressed --12george1 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 12george1 (talk · contribs). I believe I fixed all of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will now support this nomination--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review - pass

edit

I see this article still lacks an image review so I'll see what I can do about it. The article uses 9 media files (8 images and 1 video):

All of them are in public domain with several ones from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Weather Prediction Center. I'll continue later. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the media files are relevant to the topic
  • All media files have captions but they don't all have alt texts, which should probably be added.
  • For File:Hilary_2023_path.png, would it make sense remove the Storm type explanation in the Map key since we only have one type of storm?
  • For File:Hurricane_Hilary_Mesoscale_Color.webm, would it make sense to simplify the caption by removing the description of how it was recorded (as imaged by the GOES-18 Advanced Baseline imager in simulated true color) or moving it to a footnote?
  • Unless there is a good reason otherwise, it's usually best to place the media file next to the paragraph that discusses its topic. For example, road damage in Death Valley National Park is discussed in the 2nd paragraph of the subsection "California" and Lake Manly is discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Aftermath"

Otherwise, I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phlsph7 (talk · contribs)! I added alt texts. As for the storm path, I think the map key is useful showing the different map points being related to different intensities on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The most intense is purple, but that is for Category 5 hurricanes only, which Hilary didn't reach. I changed the one caption to "Timelapse of Hilary from GOES-18 weather satellite". I moved the images as suggested. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Regarding the storm type explanation in the caption, I agree that the Saffir-Simpson scale should be included. I meant the part below it, i.e., circle = Tropical cyclone, square = Subtropical cyclone, and triangle = Extratropical cyclone. But this is a minor point. Pass on the media review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

I know next to nothing about meteorology and can't offer any useful comment on the content of the article. To my layman's eye it looks thorough, neutral and well sourced. A few points about the prose:

  • "before being absorbed into a new non-tropical low pressure area early on August 21" – I think when a phrase is used attributively like this it needs a hyphen, otherwise what we have is a pressure area that is low.
  • "and the region was placed under a high risk threat for flash flooding by the Weather Prediction Center (WPC)" – another attributive adjectival phrase that could do with a hyphen. And the use of the passive voice makes it read as though it was the WPC that was doing the flooding. Better recast in the active voice – "and the W– P– C– placed the region …"
  • "Hilary quickly weakened as it accelerated north-northward" – "north-northward" is a term with which I am not familiar, and I wonder if it is what you meant.
  • "sparsely-populated region of northwestern Mexico in the state of Baja California" – no need for a hyphen between the adverb and the participle.
  • "1-in-100 year rainfall totals" – I'd add another hyphen, after 100.
  • "Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff and personnel were ordered to be positioned in southern California by President Joe Biden" – Another passive voice that would be better in the active – "President J– B– ordered …"
  • "The United States Navy moved carriers and ships out to sea and out of Hilary's path, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and to park aircraft in hangars." – The grammar goes off the rails towards the end of the sentence. If I interpret your meaning correctly you need something like "…and parked" rather than "and to park".
  • "would closed for two days" – ungrammatical. Either "would be closed" or, just as good and shorter, "would close".
  • "The remnants of Hilary moved through the western United States, producing rainfall from California as far north as Montana." – I think you need a "to" before "as far north as…" otherwise rain is falling horizontally and a very long way.
  • "semi-trucks" – an unfamiliar term: perhaps a blue link?
  • "U.S. President Joe Biden announced a major disaster declaration – we've been introduced to him earlier. A plain surname is all that is wanted here.

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Tim riley talk 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim riley (talk · contribs), these were quite helpful! I believe I've addressed all of these concerns. Please let me know if there's anything else that's holding back this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the nomination well, and I certainly don't oppose it, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel confident in supporting at this stage, and will wait to see if there are comments from better-informed reviewers. Tim riley talk 10:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

edit

I reviewed the GAN for this article back in May, and was greatly impressed with the nominator's work. (Indeed, I have respected him for many years as one of Wikipedia's foremost contributors to weather articles.) There were some things that I let slide at the GAN that I wouldn't have let slide here, but they have already been caught by other reviewers and corrected by the nominator. I've reread the article for the purposes of this review and I do have a few niggling qualms about the prose:

  • Portions of interstates 5, I-8, I-10, and I-15 were closed, along with the Pacific Coast Highway and other roads. – spelling out "interstates" and then using the I-n abbreviation for the other interstates in the list reads a little awkwardly to me. I would suggest either removing the plural, or removing the I- portions so that the list is just numbers.
  • Late on August 21, crews reopened state route CA-190 – state routes are abbreviated elsewhere as SR nnn, and I would suggest tweaking this to be consistent with the rest of the article.
  • Damage in Inyo County alone was estimated at $500 million.[107][108][106][109][110] – that is a lot of superscript all at once. I would recommend bundling these citations.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem! The new changes generally look good to me. I will say that "state route SR 190" seems a little redundant and could probably be condensed to just "SR 190", but it would feel rather silly to withhold support over something so minor. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would greatly appreciate feedback at my first-ever FAC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Only a few from me:

  • Having the {{tl:clear}} template leaves about five inches of whitespace between the end of the lead and the history section. That's about the same amount of space as is taken up by the lead. I appreciate that settings, screen sizes etc differ between users, but if I'm seeing it, others will too.
  • "The origins of Hilary": as it's the first reference in the body of the article, maybe giving the full "Hurricane Hilary" might be beneficial?
  • "9-1-1 phone service": is it often written like that? I've only ever seen it as our article has it: 911 (as a Brit, I don't see it that often, so it's likely my ignorance here, but having it in line with our article seems a beneficial course)

I hope these are of assistance. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat! I removed the clear to remove the whitespace, added "Hurricane Hilary" to that suggestion, and changed to "911", which, agreed, I don't usually see the dashes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

The Guardian does not need an ISSN. #41 and others say www.cbsnews.com, this probably can be turned into a non-URL format. #40 probably needs its source rewritten - "California Governor." What is #57 and #85 and #103 and #143? The Twitter/X links need to say by who they are. Should Telemundo and Newsweek and #150 be italicized? Seems like we are using media and government reports as sources - do we also have academic papers etc? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus!
  • I removed the ISSN in Ref 14
  • I believe I corrected the instances where it says website, and removed instances of the website in favor of a publisher.
  • I corrected Ref 40 - "California Governor" to "Office of the Government of California"
  • Ref 57 is a news release from the National Park Service (added that as publisher). Added publisher for #85, 103, and 143.
  • I believe all of the Tweets have publishers.
  • I changed refs to make sure they're italicized.
  • As for non media/government sources, there is an academic paper discussing the storm's unlikely connection with the earthquake, and I just added a conference which expanded on some of the Nevada impacts. Because the storm was so recent, there hasn't been enough time for the research to paper to publishing cycle.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, any additional comments on the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this passes now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

edit
  • The launch for Falcon 9 and Starlink satellites from Vandenberg Space Force Base near Los Angeles was postponed by SpaceX. – Suggest rephrasing slightly to "A Falcon 9 launch carrying Starlink satellites", since the former is the vehicle and the latter the payload. I might also say "near Lompoc" or "in Santa Barbara County" instead of "near Los Angeles"; the launch site and Los Angeles are about 140 miles distant.
  • ...a 5.1 magnitude earthquake that struck north of Los Angeles near Ojai, California... – The epicenter was northwest of L.A., not so much north.
  • In Death Valley National Park, flash floods damaged all of the nearly 1,400 mi (2,300 km) of roads, forcing the park to close for two months. – The way this is phrased suggests that every single mile of road in the park was damaged, instead of some portion of each road. Reference [109] (Inyo County Storm Events Database) says "Four hundred miles of NPS roads were damaged or destroyed" in DVNP; this could be used if you want a more specific number.
  • I included a more up to date reference that also included the end of the emergency period, which confirmed that 1,323 miles in the park were damaged. The National Park Service said here "All roads in the park were damaged." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...floodwaters from the Lone Pine Creek destroyed portions of Whitney Portal Road... – Not sure "Lone Pine Creek" needs the definite article?
  • Farther north, heavy rain produced mudslides and flash flooding in Siskiyou County near Mount Shasta, damaging roads and rains. – Checking the source, should this be "roads and drains"?
  • The project was intended to withstand the 100 year flood. – Suggest changing "the 100 year flood" to "a 100-year flood" and wiki-linking the subject page.
  • You mention briefly in the 'Elsewhere' subsection of 'Impacts' that the storm was beneficial for the control of wildfires in Washington state. Hilary also seems to have (at least temporarily) quashed wildfire conditions in California as well during the peak of fire season—some of the coverage of that may merit inclusion.

Overall, great work on a generational (hopefully) weather event for the Western United States! — Penitentes (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Penitentes, I believe I've addressed your comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed! Thanks for making the changes; happy to support. — Penitentes (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (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_Hilary/archive1&oldid=1237030378"