Talk:Hurricane Alex (2016)

Redirect

For now, the article has been redirected, due to lack of additional content from the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Alex the earliest forming named storm?

I recently added the following piece to the article and it was reverted, however I don't see why it is either trivial or happenstance, especially due to the fact that I had already added the fact to the Alex section of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season page and decided to elaborate on the reasoning behind it on the main Alex article. Everything seems to be thoroughly sourced as far as I can tell so I'm not sure what is wrong with it: Alex is also the earliest forming Atlantic storm to receive a name as the three other storms which formed in January were either not recognized until post-season analysis or occurred before 2002 when subtropical cyclones were not officially named. --Undescribed (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an issue with the content, not the sourcing. Formation records based on named storms are trivial at best since naming is an artificial factor. Storms come and go with or without our naming them, and policies for naming change over time. It's only happenstance that this type of "record" exists. We should focus on meteorological factors that are not subject to human error. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically Alice 55 was the earliest named storm, as it was named on New Year's Day. The more you try to add to the wording to make Alex achieve this record, the more it is watered down. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In the news blurb

So, what is the deal? The "News" on the Wikipedia front page: "Hurricane Alex (pictured) becomes the first recorded Atlantic hurricane to form in the month of January since 1938." Yet the article it points to indicates a different "fact" ("...first Atlantic hurricane in January since Alice in 1955.") So which is it? Jdevola (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jdevola: It's a technicality that changes depending on how you word it. The last hurricane to form in January (how the ITN blurb is worded) was indeed the 1938 storm; however, the last hurricane to exist in January was Alice 1954–55. A one word difference that changes the meaning of the sentence significantly. The article mentions both within the background section; however, given that Alice became a hurricane a mere 12 hours before the New Year, I felt it more appropriate to highlight that storm in the lead over the 1938 storm. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I've gone ahead and added 1938 to the lead as well to avoid confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Record warm water, my posterior

I just checked the SST anomaly field for January 9 here. Where Alex became subtropical, the waters are within 1C of climatology. Isn't this why wikipedia determined blogs are bad references? Grumble grumble grumble... Thegreatdr (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are allowed so long as they're written by verified professionals, so we've considered sources from Jeff M. reliable for a while...occasionally there have been minor issues, but this is definitely jarring. Removing the information accordingly, and I guess we'll have to take each post of his on a case-by-case basis from now on. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The last sentence in the lead is:

• Gusty winds and heavy rain caused minor damage across the archipelago, with overall effects less impactful than initially feared.

"Impactful" is not a very elegant word (not sure if it's a word at all, and, if it is, it's not very common, at least in the U.S.). It sounds like reporters' jargon. I suggest instead the word "severe":

• ...with overall effects less severe than initially feared.

Corinne (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Impactful" is definitely a word, and it's definitely used in the US. (NY Governor Cuomo, The Weather Channel, Baltimore Business Journal, CBS News, NASA GSFC, The Washington Post... all in reference to hurricanes, in the past few years, found on the first three pages of a Google search.) Agree that "severe" works better in this case, but only because of the surrounding sentence structure. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

See also section

I removed an entry since there is a list right above it, and the section could become its own list rather easily. If the entry is related and notable, perhaps work it into the article per WP:SEEALSO. --Malerooster (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If another editor feels that strongly about including that entry, fine with me. I will not add it back. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: What is your problem for "See also" sections? In storm articles, if there is/are storms which are similar, we add it in the section. However what I don't like thay some articles have a lot of links in the section. About 2 - 4 are fine.nTyphoon2013 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:Hi Typhoon2013, I don't really have a "problem" per say with See also sections, its just that they can become a "dumping" ground for anything even remotely related to the subject of the article, and can be sometimes "used" to make a connection, especially in BLPs that isn't appropriate, and can become a list or very large as you point out. In your case above, if the the storm or whatever, is similar and notable, its "better" if it can be worked into the article body if possible per WP:SEEALSO and then not repeated in the See also section. Ideally, well written articles do not even have a See also section. Of course, there are exceptions, and as was pointed out, its ultimately up to editorial discreaction, you mileage will vary. I removed a few repeated links from a few storm articles that already were in the body. I will not add back in this case since I ruffled some feathers which was not my intention. On the whole, the storm articles are very well written and I do appreciate the efforts of editors who "like" and edit these articles. I like birds so I get it :) I hope this helps, cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Alex (2016)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Props for getting this article in shape so quickly! Although the storm only just dissipated, I see no evidence to suggest the article fails to meet the "stability" requirements, and there should be only minimal new information from post-season reports. I'll post comments and suggestions as I go along...

• On January 13, it developed into a subtropical cyclone well south of the Azores, becoming the first such system in the North Atlantic since an unnamed storm in 1978. - this needs to be clarified to avoid the implication that Alex was the first subtrop since 1978.
• One person died when a helicopter was unable to transport them to a hospital. - this should specify that the injury wasn't related to the storm.
• The MH (especially the first paragraph) seems overly-technical and verbose. For example, it's a bit arbitrary to identify the original system as "an area of lower-tropospheric vorticity" when there was also an upper-level shortwave. If it were me, I'd probably just boil the whole thing down something like, "Hurricane Alex originated in a [[extratropical cyclone|non-tropical]] weather disturbance that developed over Cuba and the Bahamas on January 6." The next sentence is throwing me off, too - the link to the subtropical jet isn't made very clear, and I'm not sure what the El Nino-exclusive occurrence is.
  • Toned that bit down somewhat and removed the arguably tangential El Niño bit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Situated to the east of a shortwave trough, Alex traveled northeast and gradually turned more to the north as it rounded the trough. - if it was on the east side of the trough, it will have already rounded it. The cited discussion says the shortwave-Alex combo turned north around "a broader mid-latitude cyclonic gyre", so I think that should be reflected.
• You could probably round off the degrees Fahrenheit to the nearest 5 to jive with the Celsius figures, though that's probably a matter of preference.
  • Rounded the first one since that value is probably to the nearest 5, kept the second one as-is since SSTs are to the nearest degree. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• "The storm remained vertically stacked with a cold-core low" - another phrase that could perhaps be simplified a little. "The storm remained situated under a cold-core low"?
• The impact section looks great.

I've done some minor copyediting throughout, so be sure to check and make sure I haven't botched anything. Images all check out, a spot-check of references reveals no major issues, and the content is comprehensive. I'll be happy to pass the article once some of the prose harshness and jargon concerns have been addressed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• That should be everything~ Thanks for the review, JC! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• With your changes, the article easily meets the GA criteria. Nice work, and thanks for getting to these fixes so quickly! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)