Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Adolph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Adolph has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2014Featured topic candidatePromoted
August 17, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

Assessment

[edit]

Longer intro and any more possible impact. Start-Low.Mitchazenia 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touched the article up where specified. Also added sourcing for the intro (and mentioned that this was on record when recording began) and added more info to the article and finally did a spell checking. Jake52 My talk 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite web}} formatting would be a great improvement for the article. Try going through the NHC discussions for more info. Also, give it another read-through. There are a lot of phrases that aren't well-written - "pulled itself together", "Dvorak numbers suggested that", "started life", "While turning northward and starting slow movement towards Mexico on May 27, a rugged banding eye feature became apparent on satellite imagery and convection around this eye feature began to deepen and the decision was made that Adolph had reached hurricane strength on the same day, but after coming within roughly 165 miles of the Mexican coastline the next day-the closest approach to land that the hurricane would make-Adolph began a left turn, influenced by a mid-tropospheric ridge" (quite a runon), "part of its life", "after all was said and done", "After the bout", and "Adolph's bad luck". Perhaps consider combining the preparations and impact section with the records section to form "Impact, records, and naming". Use more active and direct voice in verbs by avoiding phrases like had become or was predicted. Another image couldn't hurt. Finally, I'm not sure it should be said that the hurricane was retired. The name was removed, not retired. Retirement is generally reserved for storms due to damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Concerning the picture)What would be a decent addition? Right now, the available pictures are mostly satellite images of the storm. Aside from those, the only other image Google brings up is a rainfall distribution 3D image like the current one, but with only half the storm's rainfall showing. As far as the tone and the cite-web go, I've got those covered. Jake52 My talk 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another MODIS satellite pic would be good. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one's cut off, but there are a couple of them at commons already. Good kitty 02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article a few goes-around and fixed the tone in the places indicated as well as fixed sourcing and info. I also corrected some spelling mistakes in the article. What else is needed for B-Class? Jake52 My talk 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copyedit, and some things could use more explaining. What conditions were favorable for development? Why did it turn to the north? Why did it intensify so rapidly? More lede would be good, as well. Try adding more from NHC discussions. All in all, pretty close to B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those questions answered on the next edition of Hurricane Adolph (2001)! Jake52 My talk 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much more info does this article need before it reaches B-Class? I think I'm milked nearly all available information relevant from the discussions. Jake52 My talk 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good enough for B. The best thing to add now would be Spanish sources containing actual impact. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the hardest part. Nearly all stories pertaining to Adolph (CNN, Yahoo, etc.) were purged with age. The only Spanish article I found on Adolph is the one being sourced. I'm not sure if this article is even close to meeting the GA Criteria, but I'll try to dig up something (anything) on impact. Jake52 My talk 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried newspaper sources, such as the hurricane archive? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Most of those articles say the same thing. Jake52 My talk 10:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Should this be renamed Hurricane Adolph. It was retired was in it. --Yellow Evan (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last sentence, but I agree about the name. It was retired, so it should, bu convention, be moved. However, one could argue that it was retired for political reasons rather than damages, and thus does not justify the main article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the opinion that the storm was not retired, since the name was just removed. IMO, someone searching for Hurricane Adolph should be pointed to the dab, not to here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WMO Operational Plan does list it among the retired names.Potapych (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, it's page 89[1] although it is hard to ascribe the retirement to this Adolph. It just happened to be the first time someone noticed and took offense to it.Potapych (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically pointed to this storm, so I don't know... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why someone took offence in 2001 is obvious enough: The occurrence of "Israel" later in the list. Retired storms get the primary name, due to their impact, not because the name was retired. Names here mirror the WMO's decisions on retirement, because "should this storm be retired?" and "should this storm get the main article?" depend on the same information (the impact of the storm). However, that is not the case with this storm. Of the 4 Adolphs: 1983's had some effect on land, 1989's was a do-nothing tropical storm, 1995's posed a serious threat to land at one point and the same was true in 2001. The 2001 storm is the most notable of the 4 IMO (minor land effects plus records), but it is not significantly more important than either the '83 or '95 storm. Given that its probably best to keep the dab at Hurricane Adolph, whether it was technically retired or not.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the nitpicking about causes of Adolph's retirement? It shouldn't matter if the cause of the retirement was due to an Adolph's seasoning plant offshore Mexico being destroyed by the storm, or Adolph becoming the name of the new director of the WMO. If there was only one Hurricane Adolph, name it Hurricane Adolph, without the year. Do we really want to nitpick to the point of turning more people off to this project? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we know why it was removed, and that's why we're nitpicking over the name. We reserve storms having the main article for storms that were retired due to damage, and we know this isn't the case. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was merely due to retirement, not the cause of the retirement (the main TC project page does not indicate cause, or for that matter that we definitely leave the year out for retired storms, it just says MAY.) Technically, tropical cyclone names were not systematically retired through the WMO until the 1980s. We would have had a 1982 Agnes, had the list not changed to include male names in 1979. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, a quick thought on that. In the Atlantic, we know the name Carol retired for its name in 1954, even though it wasn't officially retired until after its usage in 1965. I believe it is the cause of the retirement which is important, since otherwise we'd be considering the 1965 fish storm Category 2 to have been retired. How does that relate to Adolph? I dunno, I feel that retirement is more meant for the damaging storms, and not just for the names that are removed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Retirement is not the same as article title in any case. Basically, main article = primary subject. If someone in 2015 looks for "Hurricane Katrina" what storm are they most likely to be after info on? How about "Hurricane Carol"? How about "Hurricane Irene"? Or "Hurricane Adolph"? The first two have obvious answers. They may want the 1999 Irene, but who knows what will happen in 2011? As for Adolph, this is the most likely one but by nothing like the same clear cut margin. The guideline is not a rule that cannot be broken. The "retirement clause" on the project page is to deal with instances like the Irenes, not the Adolphs - Irene '99 is the most notable one but it is still on the lists; so may be usurped at some point.
    I think that Adolph was formally retired as a name as opposed to 'removed from the list'. However to quote the WP guideline above: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". I think that is the situation here.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is decided that only retired tropical cyclone names which cause significant damage get the main article, then storms like Diana (which was not retired due to the 1990 storm), and Klaus (which was not retired due to the 1990 storm) need to be renamed appropriately and get the same treatment you are suggesting for Adolph. Their 1984 versions were more destructive. I'm not trying to be difficult...I'm just acting as a sanity check regarding naming. We should be consistent through the project. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, wait a sec. How are you saying the 1990 Diana and Klaus were not retired for their 1990 storms? I thought Mexico requested Diana due to the 100+ death toll, and Martinique due to heavy damage on the island. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The post-storm report for Klaus 1990 says nothing about Martinique, although the annual article does say it rained there and 7 deaths occurred (7 deaths from a minor hurricane causing name retirement?) The 1984 Klaus caused a bit more damage because NHC didn't write advisories on the system until after it passed by Puerto Rico/Leeward Islands (oops.) Diana of 1990 does show 96 deaths from the post storm report and annual article for Mexico, so what you said about Diana sounds plausible. The NOAA page does imply what you said about both, but it's hard to believe Klaus was retired due to effects from the 1990 system.
    And what about Frances in 2004? The country of France had asked for Frances to be retired, even before the storm name was used, apparently for the same reasons Israel and Adolph were removed from the EastPac list. This whole retirement of hurricane names seems to get more confusing by the decade. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOAA confirms about Diana/Klaus and Mexico/Martinique (and also Carol in 54). The site also links Frances' retirement with Florida. I think that is a major difference between Adolph, which we know was removed solely because of the name. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I is considered retired, but that means someone needs to wright up Hazel and Knut.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched up on Hazel, Knut (and Adele and Iva, although they weren't mentioned). I didn't find anything about retirement for them. I did find that Hazel killed a few fishers in Mexico, Adele had no hits, I found nothing for Knut, and the context of the only relevant Iva hit made it clear that it was a mispelling of Hurricane Iwa. I wasn't able to draw any conclusions about why they were retired. However, it does seem that EPac hurricane naming history is just plain knuts. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring their damage, It is considered retired on this link.[2]

They even forgot one-Hali-was retired. Mabey someone should email the JHWC, NHC ,or CPHC about this. --Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to do it this is who List of Retired Pacific hurricanes look like.

<

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Adolph (2001)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • There are multiple issues with the lead section:
      • Hurricane Adolph was a rare Category 4 hurricane in May. — lacking completely in context, making the lede not clear . Category 4 on what scale? May of what year?
      • The first depression of the season formed May 25 and became a hurricane three days later. — more lack of context. Is Adolph the first storm of the season? (Yes, I know it is, but a layman reader will not.) I'd rephrase to "Adolph was the first tropical depression of the year, and formed on May 25; three days later, it had already become a hurricane" or something similar. Also, this is an example of the standard, dry, boring, canned boilerplate explicitly discouraged in tropical cyclone article writing guidance.
        •  Done
      • After rapidly intensifying, Adolph became the most powerful storm in terms of wind speed this season, along with Hurricane Juliette. — link to maximum sustained wind; the last part of the sentence (the mention of Juliette) seems rather brief, and you also did not even mention what speeds Adolph attained, or when it did so.
        •  Done
      • It dissipated on June 1. — This sentence is really brief; please expand it.
        •  Done
      • Despite only briefly threatening land, the name was later removed from use. — Why? It seems much more appropriate to mention that Adolph was retired due to political pressure here than it currently is, in the next sentence.
        •  Done
      • Adolph was noteworthy for being the first and so far the only East Pacific hurricane in May to reach Category 4 strength since record keeping began in the East Pacific — WHY is this buried so deep in the lede? This is the storms primary claim of notability, and placing it here is a severe lack of organization in the most critical portion of the article.
      • and for being retired for sensitive reasons. — imprecise wording that changes the meaning of what actually happened.
    • Meteorological history:
      • On May 7, a tropical wave left the coast of Africa. — jargon; link to tropical wave
        •  Done
      • The low entered the Pacific Ocean on May 22, and Dvorak classifications began two days later. — you are relying too much on supporting articles to support the text. It would not hurt anyone to say what Dvorak classifications are used for, such as saying "Dvorak classifications—satellite-based intensity estimates—began two days later." Otherwise, the flow of text is disrupted too much.
        •  Done
      • The newly formed depression moved very slowly due to weak steering currents aloft — newly-formed. This should be hyphenated.
        •  Done
      • resulting in an a typical track towards the east-northeast. — is it a typical track? An atypical track? What makes a track typical or atypical? According to whom it was typical or atypical? What is this sentence even trying to say?
        •  Done
      • Because of these weak steering conditions, the computer models used to predict the movement of the depression varied greatly, with one predicting an eventual Mexican landfall. — computer model is a poor link to use, when you have both tropical cyclone forecast model and tropical cyclone track forecasting available as better links.
        •  Done
      • Located in conditions ideal for tropical development, it formed a central dense overcast, a large area of deep convection. — unclear antecedent for "it". Is it the depression? A computer model? The Mexican landfall? (Yes, only one of those makes sense, but spell it out in the article.)
        •  Done
      • Adolph was in a low wind shear environment with warm sea surface temperatures and as such, the NHC forecasted. — the NHC forecasted what? Fluffy bunnies falling out of the sky? You're missing half of the sentence here.
      • Added the remaining half. :P YE Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adolph turned northward on May 27, a turn influenced by a mid-level ridge building to the east and southeast,[8], thus causing the tropical storm to approach Mexico. — double comma around the reference
      • A banding eye feature became apparent on satellite imagery. — what is a banding eye feature? The supporting article does not explain this term.
      • The high upper oceanic heat content, good outflow, and lack of vertical shear[9] allowed the hurricane to begin a burst of rapid intensification, dropping 1.46 mbars per hour. [2] — watch your reference spacing at the end of the sentence; its also upper-oceanic.
        •  Done
      • While reducing in size, [9] Adolph reached its peak strength of 145 mph (230 km/h) on August 29.[3] — more ref spacing issues with ref 9
        •  Done
      • Dvorak classifications reported a T-number of 7.0 to this hurricane, equivalent to a low-end Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.[2] — "reported a T-number of 7.0 to this hurricane" sounds wrong, particularly "to".
        •  Done
    • Impact, Records and Naming
      • First off, fix the headers' capitalization per WP:MOSHEAD
        •  Done
      • … its close approach to land as well as its slow, unpredictable movement[14] resulted in the issuance of a tropical storm warning and hurricane watch for southern Mexico — missing "a" before hurricane watch; and why is one linked and not the other?
        •  Done
      • Coincidentally, the previous record holder for strongest May hurricane, in 1983 with 110 mph (175 km/h) winds, was also named "Adolph".[2] — is there a link to this article? Why is "Adolph" in quotation marks?
      • The World Meteorological Organization received intense criticism for using both Adolph and Israel during the season, — why are these two names bolded?
      • In fact, the President of the WMO Regional Association IV-which monitors this basin-consulted committee members during the season and removed Israel as a consensus — the way you are using the dashes there, they should be em dashes (—) not en dashes (-)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
      • Multiple dead links; please review the external links report from the toolbox at the top of the page and deal with those appropriately.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
      • No issues here
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
      • No issues here
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
      • No issues here
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Why does the first MODIS picture matter? The caption does not indicate the development stage of the storm at the point of the snapshot. Also, link MODIS to an appropriate page
    • While not explicitly set out in the GA criteria, you are supposed to alternate pictures left and right, set them all to the left, or set them all to the right, per WP:MOSIMAGES. You are not doing any of them at this point.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Adolph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Adolph&oldid=1240872231"