Talk:1970 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jason Rees (talk · contribs) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, In order to claim a few points for my wiki-cup run, I have decided to review this article for you. Bear with me and im sure we will put this article into a decent shape.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that grabs me is that the opening sentence in the lead is sourced back to HURDAT and I have three qualms with this. 1) It suggests that there have been no named storms, anywhere in the world since 1959 which is untrue. 2) The fact that its cited back to HURDAT makes me think that its either trivia or a made up record since its not easily verifiable. 3) Why do we need to reference it in the lead when its mentioned and cited in the seasonal summary section below.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a record I made up and I was gonna argue that I was only citing 11 years in HURDAT, but at the end of the day, it's still citing HURDAT for a "record". I'm thinking about in the annual NOAA report where it says about flying into all four quadrants of a tropical cyclone for the first time in 1970. I will discuss the importance of that in the season summary. If you don't like that either, I'd probably have no idea what to open the article with. The season wasn't really exceptionally interesting in any way--12george1 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather boring personally and I was going to suggest that you add a tidbit in how this season was the last before the 10-year list of names was introduced except thats trivial and i think that the fact applies more to 1970 AHS.Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to see a sourced areas affected table added to the season as to keep with project standards.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While a seasonal effects table has been introduced - it needs some work to make it decent to bring it up to project standards, but i will help with this.Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping ahead to the seasonal summary section, the timeline feels crammed together. Why are you splitting it at every 8 TC's rather than say 5 or 10? That way you should be able to avoid two depressions bars touching each other.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it must be 5 or 10, I'm just gonna expand the width to 1000. I couldn't do it with 5. Also, I made several failed attempts at moving TS Four--12george1 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still feels very crammed but i guess thats a case of there being so many depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the storm names section, I would get rid of the retirement section and add the sentence dealing with Carmen's retirement to the naming blurb. I would also introduce see also links to Tropical cyclone naming, History of tropical cyclone naming, list of historic tropical cyclone names and list of retired Atlantic hurricane names.Jason Rees (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section should now contain links to the SHEM seasons of 1969 and 1970 since they have been created or are about to be created.Jason Rees (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely since HURDAT has TS Four as TS Six in HurdGoing through HURDAT, I wonder why we are not calling TS 4, TS 6. Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Within TS Four's section, I see that a lot of the information is cited straight back to HURDAT, which im not 100% happy about since it makes it harder for the readers to verify the information. I also notice that HURDAT is apparently telling me that "The ship Hotel observed sustained winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) around that time." even though it doesnt.Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what was TS Four but that I bumped to TS Eight per HURDAT, I am wondering what gives you ground to say that it had a precursor tropical depression and ignore HURDAT which has the system lasting from August 15-19.Jason Rees (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Becky I see the line: By July 22, Becky made landfall near Port St. Joe, Florida, as either a minimal tropical storm or a tropical depression and I have to ask myself which is it and where is it cited too?.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having been through HURDAT for 1970 today - I am wondering if we really should be noting the five tropical depressions that are not in it. Especially since the only evidence for them seems to be the maps in Frank 1971.Jason Rees (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Hurricanehink told me a few days ago that you wanted a response from me. I'll put everything done here and you can tell me if there is anything else. I have added the other citations to the season effects table. I merged the retirement and storm names. The See Also section now contains links to the 1969-70 and 1970-71 SHEM seasons. I have provided the correct source for wind speed measured by the ship during TS 8. My justification for having those two systems as one was that CB posted on Facebook about his reanalysis of that storm. But obviously that's not official yet and thus I have separated the TD and TS 8. I revised Becky's section to indicate that the storm made landfall in Florida as a tropical depression. Finally, I removed the TDs that aren't in HURDAT--12george1 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JC

I noticed that this has been under review for quite some time, so I decided to do a little of my own digging. My first impression is that the article is still pretty rough around the edges. I started doing a little copyediting, but there were some issues I couldn't work out on my own and I think it would take at least a couple hours of work to get the page close to meeting the GA criteria. Some outstanding examples of my concerns:
The MWR has some interesting info on the season's overall activity, like the number of disturbances and tropical waves that formed. That should definitely be in the "Season summary" section.
Three systems originated in July, including Tropical Storm Becky, the depression that would eventually intensify into Hurricane Celia, - Sort of a garden path sentence... I was trying to figure out how Becky could have eventually intensified into Hurricane Celia.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two unnamed hurricanes developed in October, the second of which - Dangling participle

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the disturbance interacted with a low-level vortex over the northwest Caribbean Sea. - This seems really weaselly, and I can't seem to find the relevant passage in the MWR supporting that info. What am I missing? As best as I can tell, the table on page 282 says Becky originated from a wave that passed Dakar on July 9.

It sounds like you want me to remove that statement, which I did--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Celia was a nearly $1 billion storm with a very straightforward storm history, I think that section should have a better balance of meteorological and damage info.

- Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Nueces County, wind gusts as high as 180 mph (290 km/h) were observed. - Estimated, not observed.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8,950 homes were destroyed and damaged about 55,650 others

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Texas alone - Where else was there more damage?

There were deaths elsewhere, but I think it would be better to remove "alone"--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, the depression continued moving - If it was initial then it wasn't a continuation.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Salvo, where the tide may have reached 4 ft (1.2 m) above normal - May have reached? I could see if this were the early 18th century, but for 1970 we should have a pretty good idea of how high the tides actually were.

"No measurement of tide but may have been four feet above normal at Salvo" - [1]--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A surface trough - Jargon

The main article says "well-defined trough", so I'll go with that--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding and persist precipitation

Better?--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tides peaked at 7 ft (2.1 m) normal

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felice has about as much impact info as Celia. See what I mean?
As one of the worst disasters in PR history, TD 15 should have more impact info.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, it moved slowly westward, until September 22, - William Shatner? Is that you?

Yes. I'll autograph anything, for only, $25 :P --12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the system moved over warmer waters, gale-force winds were measured. - Measured by who/what?

Neither the preliminary report nor the MWR state who or what measured that. Winds of about 56 mph were recorded in Tavernier, but it doesn't appear that there is a connection, at least not explicitly --12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was described as a "bomb that did not explode". - Who described it like that?

NHC--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

made a sharp westward turned, followed by a curved

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

causing suspension schools

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damage on the Burin Peninsula was in the thousands - Thousands of what?

Thousands of fake news stories, obviously--12george1 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs to be proofread and edited, at the very least, and the content could stand to be better balanced. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, it looks like all of the bulleted issues you listed have been addressed, though I don't know whether they've also taken care of your summary comment at the end. Can you please take another look to see where this stands now? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to User:BlueMoonset and User:12george1; this article slipped my mind. I'll take another look straight away and see where things stand. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments'

I'd still like to see some of the MWR tropical wave information added, for the sake of completeness.
The storm brought light rainfall to Florida, peaking at 6.66 in (169 mm) near Miami. - I'm not sure 7 inches counts as light rainfall

It was still light for the most part, so I'll make that contrast--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with unit conversions. For Alma: 30 mph (48 km/h) is false precision. For Becky: 65 mph (105 km/h), metric conversion doesn't match the infobox. For Celia: 945 mbar (27.9 inHg) - you need to specify sigfig=4, since a tenth of an inch of mercury is actually worth several millibars. There are a few more instances of these problems so please take a close look.

I fixed those but I'm not sure where else--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Louisiana, tides caused minor coastal flooding. - Either add an actual storm surge value or just "abnormally high".

Done--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although winds were strong, much of the damage was caused by a series of microbursts and downbursts - Microbursts and downbursts cause their damage by strong winds, so not sure there's really a contradiction there.

Done--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the state, 8,950 homes were destroyed and about 55,650 others were damaged. About 252 small businesses, 331 boats, and 310 farm buildings were either damaged or destroyed. - Ref 19 doesn't support this, as far as I can tell.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key West, Florida with sustained - Remember the second comma! (You might wish to check this in the rest of the article as well.)

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no more than 3 and 4 feet (0.91 and 1.22 m) in height - "In height" is wrong. Above normal?

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfall was mostly light, peaking at 8.94 in - Again... 9 inches of rain is hardly a light shower, especially since you call 5 inches "heavy" in the next section.

I'm gonna do something similar to what I did earlier, as there was a peak of nearly 9 inches, but over a small area.--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wind field was only 6 mi (9.7 km) in diameter - Radius, not diameter.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Celia section mentions 28 deaths, but the total as listed in the season effects chart is 20. Some damage figures in the chart need dollar signs.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"$103 billion"? Yikes... (also, I get $1.02b, not $1.03. Not sure if that's a calculation error on my part or some discrepancy in the article.)

Another math fail :P --12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references need work. You mix "firstname lastname" and "last, first", at least one author field only has a last name (Garza), you have publishing locations for some sources but not others, some newspapers are wikilinked while others are not, only some of the newspapers have page numbers, and I have no idea what ref #58 is supposed to be (also, it's et al., not et all). Five dead links, plus one citation with a {{deadlink}} tag that apparently works just fine. Just fix the major stuff – deadlinks, filling out ref #58, and any empty fields – and consistency issues can be worked out at a later time I'm sure.

I'm gonna quote the titles to avoid confusion with references being renumbered. The only reference that mixed up the name order is "Tropical Cyclone Point Maxima", which is actually a template. I cannot determine for sure what Garza's first name is. None of those links were dead except for the newspaper article. I wikilink the newspapers (without repetition) and added page numbers, if possible. Reference 58 was actually the last page of that "Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense" thing.--12george1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting closer. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think recent improvements have elevated the article to GA quality. Thanks for your attention to this review and apologies for the long wait. As noted in my last two rounds of comments I'd still like to see some of the seasonal disturbance statistics added from the MWR, but I guess I won't belabor the point. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]