Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes

edit

List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {t · c} 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months since I started working on this since the idea popped up on the talk page of the tropical cyclone wikiproject. I've finally completed all the entries and cleaned it up so I'm bringing it here. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This list does not include storms that also attained Category 4 or 5 status on the scale. – I'd remove "list".
  • During January to April, the North Pacific High and Aleutian Low induce strong vertical wind shear and unfavorable conditions that serve to prevent the development of hurricanes. These effects are reduced or even disappear during hurricane season from May to November – what about December?
    • Accounted for that using sea surface temperatures (which also contributes up till April). No idea how I missed out that since it's one of the most important factors. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should a Category 3 hurricane make landfall, its strongest winds are capable of causing "devastating damage" to human infrastructure, with "high risk of injury or death to people, livestock, and pets due to flying and falling debris". – I don't think the quotation marks are necessary. Try to paraphrase the second part a bit and then remove them.
  • that causes environmental conditions for tropical cyclone formation to be unconducive – I'd rephrase this as "that causes environmental conditions to be unconducive to tropical cyclone formation".
  • Is the entirety of the second paragraph in the "Climatology" section verified by those two citations at the end?
    • Unfortunately, yes; there's a surprisingly little amount of available literature that mention the roles of the Pacific High and Aleutian Low in limiting Pacific hurricane during the winter months. Another important and more commonly mentioned factor restricting hurricane formation during winter and spring, though, is low sea surface temperatures, which I've just put in with a new ref. The paragraph may be getting too long, however, so I may split it once I've worked through the rest of the stuff. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first table is too long for it to be practical to have the key at the bottom, so the key should be moved above the table. I'd also like WP:ALT text for the daggers and double-daggers.
  • In both tables, the "Refs" column should be "Refs" (i.e. {{abbr|Refs|References}}).
  • The sorting for the "Pressure" column doesn't work for the cells that begin with "≤".
  • I'd like the empty cells in the first table to be replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The same goes for the "Not specified" cells in the "Pressure" column.
  • I would consider marking the entries in the first table that made landfall (i.e. the ones that are also in the second table) with a background colour and {{hash-tag}}. The current table is fairly long and featureless, so some visual variety would be welcome to improve readability.
  • I'd like the circumstances that led to there having been 16 landfalls from 13 hurricanes to be a bit clearer. Specifically, I'd like it to be mentioned in the text that there have been 16 (the reader can figure it out from the chart or the table, but they shouldn't have to), and that Hilary made 3 and Fausto 2 (rather than just mentioning that both made more than one).
    • Mentioned both explicitly. I put the 16 landfalls in the first sentence, and added the number of landfalls Hilary and Fausto made behind their mentions in the fourth sentence.
  • Only in two years – 1971 and 1984 – did more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall, though in both years none of those Category 3 hurricanes made landfall as hurricanes. – I'd rephrase this as "Only two years – 1971 and 1984 – saw more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall, though in neither year any of those Category 3 hurricanes made landfall as hurricanes."
  • In the landfall table, I'd like each landfall to be marked with a date (the year is already mentioned in a separate column).
  • The link in reference 56 is dead.
    • I couldn't find any other source that gave me the US$203 million damage total so I dropped it to US$112 million which was what I was able to source using working links. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TompaDompa (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the comments so far, currently working through those. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa and Mattximus: I've finished working through the issues raised. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, the article states that there were no Category 3 hurricanes recorded prior to 1970. However, this is not true as Hurricane Olivia from 1967 also peaked as a Category 3 hurricane off Baja California. — Iunetalk 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I have no idea how I missed that out! Thanks Iune for the catch. I've added it in and adjusted the relevant statistics accordingly. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before 1970, tropical cyclones within the Northeast Pacific were classified into three categories: tropical depression, tropical storm, and hurricane; these were assigned intensities of 30 mph (45 km/h), 50 mph (85 km/h), and 85 mph (140 km/h) respectively. - If I'm not mistaken, this was a retroactive change in the HURDAT database rather than an operational classification which you may wish to note here. For example, reading the seasonal report for the 1967 season indicates that numerous storms such as Tropical Storm Francene and Hurricane Jewel and Lily all had peak intensities operationally estimated at different values from the current values in the HURDAT database. If you're hunting for a reference for this, I remember reading a paper about the East Pacific hurricane reanalysis which I can search for again if you'd like. — Iunetalk 01:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iune: if you could kindly provide a link to that paper I'd gladly appreciate it! Scouring countless Google searches isn't working for me this time, only Atlantic-related reanalysis seems to be appearing. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really sorry for the delay; I had found a reference, only to lose it immediately afterwards. I have the 1967 season summary: Tropical Cyclones in the Eastern North Pacific, 1967 which details the "original" intensities for the storms in the season which is different compared to HURDAT. I couldn't find a source on when the change was made to the "generic" tropical cyclone intensities currently used in the HURDAT database unfortunately—it must have happened sometime in the 1970s or 1980s as far as my digging has revealed, but I'm not sure when. — Iunetalk 00:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @KN2731: With regards to the above reference, I feel that including it in the article (along with the retroactive change discussion) is honestly up to you as there is no source explicitly stating when the change was made. I believe that the article is in excellent shape otherwise, and support the nomination regardless of your decision on whether to include it in the article. — Iunetalk 00:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tbh I don't feel like including that the change was retroactive if it can't be sourced... and I would give priority to HURDAT since it is supposed to be the best track after all. But you have my sincere thanks for your help. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 04:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – In Landfalls, "in" should be removed from "Only in two years ... saw more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, no issues found when I looked through, promoting. --PresN 04:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/List_of_Category_3_Pacific_hurricanes/archive1&oldid=866060091"