Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Ileana (2018)/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [1].

Tropical Storm Ileana (2018)

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tropical Storm Ileana during the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. While quite small in word count, I believe it incorporates virtually every detail out there on the storm. Please feel free to leave comments below. NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Both images are relevant, correctly arranged, and available under free licenses. buidhe 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thank you for the image review. NoahTalk 23:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComment by Fowler&fowler

edit

An article, much less an FA, cannot be tacked together with primary sources. NOAA discussion numbers such as this and advisory numbers are irredeemably primary. Sorry but this is a nogo. Wikipedia has to decide that this is legal. Until then, my hands are tied. The FAC community also needs to decide whether there is a lower bound on the page size. This article has 1,000 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So these weren't legal? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem with a lot of hurricane articles. I have registed my oppose. The coords can decide what weight to assign to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for your size comment, many past FAs have been significantly smaller than this. A list may be viewed here (hasn't been updated in a few years). One of the smallest (at least as far as I know) is Miss Meyers with a mere 686 words today. That is over 30% smaller than Ileana is right now. If I recall correctly, SchroCat either worked on or knows someone who worked on a bunch of smaller FAs. I believe they were smaller than this. NoahTalk 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Also pinging the coordinators for their thoughts. NoahTalk 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not disallowed, per WP:PRIMARY. What is disallowed is original research from primary sources. Nor is there anything in the FAC criteria that require a certain number of words in a candidate article - all that is required is that an article be comprehensive and cover all the information covered in the sources. I haven't read the article to tell if either of these situations apply - and the oppose does not touch on that either. If this article does original research from primary sources or neglects some area that's covered by sources - the reviewer needs to substantiate that. If reviewers want to change the criteria to exclude any use of primary sources or to require some minimum size, that's a discussion for another location, not on an individual nomination. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks Ealdgyth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer opposing the article. Thanks for the clarification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is about to drop onto the older nominations list, would it be best to just archive it? Clearly, the editors have spoken and WP does not care about this article. With no actual reviews after nearly 20 days, I see no reason for the process to continue any further. This isn't a withdraw by any means. I am just stating the obvious in regards to my nomination and will let you decide on how to proceed. NoahTalk 02:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport by JavaHurricane:

edit

1. Please get rid of the redlinks in the impacts section.

Not done per WP:RED NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. A query, should the watches and warnings be capitalised?

I made them lowercase. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. "In the state of Mexico, heavy rains from Ileana caused severe flooding. The Anillo Periférico and several other roads in Mexico City experienced flooding. As a result of the rains, the Mexico City Metro (STC) implemented safety measures for several of its lines." I think you could merge the latter two sentences and add an also after Mexico city.

Merged, but didnt add also because those were the only roads I mentioned in the article. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. "[...] and a Tropical Storm Watch was also issued for the southern tip of Baja California Sur from Los Barilles to Todo Santos." Remove the "was also issued", it is redundant due to the previous (unquoted) part of the sentence.

Done. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Tropical Storm Irwin (1993) – a tropical storm of a similar intensity that was also incorporated into a nearby hurricane" - change to "[...] also absorbed by a nearby hurricane".

Changed, although they mean the same thing (this is simpler to understand). NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge the sentences.

Done. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. "The NHC raised its development chances to 50% around 17:00 UTC on that day after satellite imagery indicated an area of low pressure had formed a few hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec and was showing signs of organization." I don't think this sentence is needed, but take a call about it.

sentence shows how quickly the storm developed. It was rephrased. NoahTalk 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Around the same time, the NHC reported that Ileana had strong deep convection with cloud temperatures of −121 to −130 °F (−85 to −90 °C). Additionally, a banded eye feature had developed within the central dense overcast. Soon after, microwave imagery and Acapulco radar showed the emergence of an eyewall structure at the mid-levels of the system." Please merge appropriately.

9. Please expand upon the interaction between John and Ileana. I think the Fujiwara effect might warrant its own paragraph.

Not possible with the information provided by the NHC. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10. "Tropical Storm Ileana was a tropical cyclone that affected Western Mexico in early August 2018, causing multiple deaths and flooding." "Relatively weak" might do, and so might "moderate flooding".

added “small” NoahTalk 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11. "Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure soon after, but became intertwined with nearby Hurricane John. John disrupted Ileana and ultimately absorbed it on August 7." Very abrupt. Please make appropriate changes.

12. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge please.

Merged NoahTalk 14:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13. "In the Huixquilucan municipality, a sewage pipe overflowed and two homes were flooded." Rephrase the sentence to show that the pipe overflow caused the flooding.

Forgot to respond to this point... The source doesnt state that one event caused the other. NoahTalk 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14. "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." Is this information really needed?

It does give a range for the rainfall since it is the lowest recorded total there. NoahTalk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15. "In Jiquipilas, Chiapas, Ileana caused another four deaths on August 6. A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge. Three children and one adult were later found dead." Please merge appropriately.

combined the last two with semi colon. NoahTalk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16. In hindsight, I think you might want to rephrase the entire lead, as it is very abrupt.

I added some kind of transitions and did the merge for the met thing mentioned above. NoahTalk 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't too bad in my opinion, but it still needs quite a bit of work to become an FA. Pinging @Hurricane Noah: in case he forgets. -- JavaHurricane 11:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah has explained some things to me on Discord, and he's doing the work. Hence, I support now. -- JavaHurricane 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

edit
  • Nowhere in the lead do you say that there are 8 deaths. Just "multiple" in the first sentence, and that there were 4 deaths in Guerrero
  • " Over the next several hours, the disturbance quickly and unexpectedly organized into a tropical depression." - why "unexpectedly"? The NHC noted a 50% chance of development, per the MH
  • The development wasn't anticipated (at least not that quickly) because the NHC raised the 48-hour chance to 50% and it formed into a TD an hour later. Also, the TCR explicitly states the genesis was not well forecast. NoahTalk 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you mention somewhere in the first lede paragraph some mention of Ileana's proximity to Mexico? That's the reason it has an article, its effects on land
  • "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco as well as flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico. " - this could use some more grammar/love
  • "The origins of Ileana can be traced back to a tropical wave that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring on July 26 as the wave departed from the west coast of Africa." - surely, the NHC was monitoring it as a tropical wave even before it left Africa. I don't think you need the "monitoring" part here, it's just as useful to the readers knowing that the wave exited Africa. I'd suggest saving the NHC reference to the first time you mention the development potential. And speaking of:
  • " the NHC raised the system's development chances to 50% around 1700 UTC on that day." - did the NHC assess any development possibility beforehand? You mention the NHC monitoring the system, but never mentioned when it was first introduced into the TWO

Did both. NoahTalk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Six hours later, the structure of the depression had degraded due to wind shear from the north." - Per the TCR, you should mention that the wind shear came from the larger Hurricane John
  • Link "eyewall structure"
  • "By 21:00 UTC" - I suggest adding another date reference here, since it has been a few sentences since the last one
  • "Additionally, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old fell into the Laguna de Tres Palos in Acapulco and drowned after their fishing boat capsized." - this should be reordered to mention the boat capsizing first - that's the event that caused the deaths, causing them to fall
  • "In Acapulco, multiple power outages occurred due to a fallen tree" - one tree?
  • "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." - seems unnecessary, as some areas probably recorded no rainfall from Ileana
  • "A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge" - sounds like it was bigger than a car if it had 18 people!

All in all it's a decent little article. I looked at Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018), and Ileana's article seems slightly sub-par, with no mention of insurance claims or shelters. That info might not exist for Ileana, I'm not sure, but it's just something that stood out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue was that Ileana stayed further off the coast. There was less coverage countrywide for Ileana compared to Carlotta. NoahTalk 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all the concerns. NoahTalk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Noah! I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

edit

I will likely nitpick a lot more than during the GA review...

  • All NHC refs (except ref 2) are missing dates
  • Ref 2's format isn't consistent with the rest
  • Check ref 12's date format
  • Refs 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 - from Template:Cite news#Publisher, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)"
  • Ref 18 gives me Error 404 Not Found
  • I don't think an author is listed for ref 19
  • Source does not specify an author
  • Please be consistent whether you provide location of publication, currently only ref 12 has it
  • Ref 21 has "[With information from] Elizabeth Mávil" at the bottom, should probably be listed as the author
  • Added the name of the road (from the source) with a link, but I dont think the flooding in multiple places is all that important to warrant another sentence about road flooding. NoahTalk 02:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: ref 16 mentions that the inhabitants were unharmed.
  • For sake of comprehensiveness, you could cover the issuance of orange/yellow/green alerts in addition to the typical tropical storm warnings/watches.
  • "In the Huixquilucan municipality" - remove "the"

All refs in the preparations and impact sections (with the exception of 18, which is dead) support the content as written, with the caveat that I'm using Google Translate to verify this, though it doesn't appear that anything was lost in translation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to MH:

  • "50% around 1700 UTC" - missing colon
Done NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the depression had a well defined low pressure center" - should be well-defined
Added. NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimum pressure is missing non-breaking spaces
Added to that. NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since NHC ref doesn't explicitly mention Fujiwhara effect, maybe add this which quotes SMN. It may be better to cite SMN directly but I'm not sure if SMN archives their advisories/reports.

Otherwise all content in the MH is verifiable. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KN2731, I can see points re. source formatting, and notes on spotchecks for verification, but I didn't see anything specifically on the reliability of the sources -- it might be that I was meant to take that as read but I'd prefer to hear it direct. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: all sources are sufficiently reliable. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Derpdadoodle

edit

Support from JC

edit

On my first read-through:

  • Tropical Storm Ileana was a small tropical cyclone - The spatial extent of the storm is not discussed in the body of the article. What's the source for "small"?
  • on August 4. Over the next several hours - Several hours beginning when? The stroke of midnight on the 4th?
  • quickly and unexpectedly organized - Source for "unexpectedly"? Given that we just mentioned the RSMC had been "monitoring" the progenitor disturbance for ten days, this might lead to some confusion.
  • well defined - Needs a hyphen.
  • Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure but became intertwined with the nearby Hurricane John. - Link for eyewall, and perhaps make the contradiction more clear; to a layreader I'm not sure "developed an eye" is immediately opposed to "became intertwined with another storm".
  • Over the next day, the circulation of the hurricane - Subject not entirely clear, so add or substitute "John"?
  • Why capitalize Western Mexico but not west coast of Africa?
  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first mentioned the system as having potential for development on August 3. - Clunky. "The NHC first noted the potential for development on August 3?
  • the NHC raised the system's development chances to 50% around 17:00 UTC on August 4. - Why is this change in probabilities significant among all the others? (And if kept, clarify that this is the two-day probability.)
  • Around that time, the NHC noted the depression had a well-defined low pressure center and a distinct, curved band of deep convection. - Find appropriate links for "low pressure center" and "band".
  • The low-level center of the depression had become exposed in the northwest and convection in the east and south had decreased. - This took a couple tries to parse. Also, clarify "exposed"?
  • Make sure citations are ordered numerically.
  • after which it was assigned the name Ileana - Presumably the naming occurred simultaneously with, not after, classification?
  • At that time, Ileana had a fairly symmetrical shape and a central dense overcast-like feature had developed over the system - Again, cumbersome. You could remove "had developed over the system" without harm.
  • Ileana continued to strengthen over the next day after entering an area with warm sea surface temperatures of 86 to 88 °F (30 to 31 °C) as it traveled to the northwest. - Run-on, or close to it.
  • Around the same time, the NHC reported that Ileana had strong deep convection with cloud temperatures of −121 to −130 °F (−85 to −90 °C). - Everything in this section was reported by the NHC. Why emphasize that here?
  • microwave imagery - Link, please.
  • The man had reportedly been pushing a car when a strong current pulled him down to the river where he drowned. - This was a bit difficult to visualize. You haven't yet mentioned flooding, so if he wasn't already in the river, what's the current?
  • Additionally, - No need for this. Every new fact is an addition.
  • a fishing boat capsized, causing an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old to fall into the Laguna de Tres Palos in Acapulco and drown. - "...capsized in Acapulco, causing them to drown in the Laguna..."?
  • The storm caused multiple power outages - "Multiple" doesn't offer us much. It could mean three, which is hardly worth reporting.
  • felled a tree - Is this significant? I'm not convinced.
  • ; a rainfall total of 3.54 in (90 mm) was recorded at the Acapulco International Airport. - Distinct enough to be divorced from previous sentence.
  • Wedding rings have been removed and the divorce paperwork has been put in. NoahTalk
  • a landslide that left a house buried - Is "buried" precise? I don't get that impression in looking at the source.
  • In Michoacán, the state required → "The state of Michoacán required"
  • The Mexico City Metro (STC) also implemented safety measures for several of its lines. - Like what?
  • and total of 33 structures - Missing word.
  • two trees fell - Per source, it might be worth mentioning that one tree blocked vehicle traffic.
  • a sewage canal overflowed and two homes were flooded. - Were the homes flooded with sewage?

Finally, a general comment: I'm not sure why it's necessary to copy PD text from NOAA. The article is short, and it would be trivial – and in my view, advantageous – to paraphrase. It strikes me as a little lazy. I know from experience that it's difficult to convey a compelling narrative in a brief article, and I think you've generally succeeded in that endeavor. Nonetheless, there is still work to be done here in my estimation. Looking forward to helping you push this article over the edge from good to great. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

edit
  • "Soon after, Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure, however, it became intertwined with the nearby Hurricane John." - Eh no, the formation of the eyewall came /while/ the storm was peaking. Move the first part of this sentence into the previous one about its max winds? And combine the rest of the sentence with the next one about John absorbing Ileana?
Done. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The freshly minted depression was traveling west-northwest under the influence of the aforementioned disturbance," - Seems weird to refer to the depression as freshly minted now after you've been talking about it for the past five sentences.
Axed that bit. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time, Ileana had a moderately symmetrical structure and a central dense overcast-like feature" - I prefer "fairly" as used in the discussion versus "moderately."
Changed back. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All watches and warnings were gradually discontinued after Ileana was no longer forecast to strengthen." - Whether Ileana continued strengthening has no bearing on the tropical storm watches/warnings. NHC discussion number 8 mentions they may need to be discontinued because strongest winds will remain offshore. That makes more sense.

You and others have done a good job with the article, so these are all the comments I have. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

edit

Has a source review been done? I do see the image review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: See KN's review and the note from Ian Rose. NoahTalk 15:36, 28 March 2020 (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/Tropical_Storm_Ileana_(2018)/archive1&oldid=948068190"