Talk:Hurricane Diana

Image

An image is needed to go in the infobox. Jdorje 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Hurricanehink 15:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

More impact. Jdorje 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has not a single source! Jdorje 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a good candidate for a re-do. Hurricanehink 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I figured if I knocked it down to stub it would show up on your radar ;-). Jdorje 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, but damn! I just tried a search, and there is nothing on this storm. Outside of the NHC report, there's next to no mention anywhere on the web. This article might be doomed to forever low-quality for an impact section. I expected something to be in the ReliefWeb Website, but nothing! There are little bits of information here and there, like Diana causing rainfall or encountering warm water temperatures, but there is not enough for an impact section. I'll try doing some more research another time, but this storm might be doomed. Hurricanehink 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Never fear, Storm05 is here!. Ive found a better Montly Weather Review Storm05 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That link gives me nothing. — jdorje (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No! Storm05, are you positive the link is right? That is exactly what is needed for the 1990 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricanehink 17:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Awesome find Storm05! It worked. I'll redo this article later. Hurricanehink 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it works now. BTW, at Monthly Weather Review there are links to archives of *all* the MWR issues (by month). The NHC only includes excerpts from each year of articles they deem applicable (included as part of the re-analysis). If you find an article they've left out, you might want to contact them about it. — jdorje (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, sooo little online. Here's a list of the 1990 Flood Archive, which might help a little... a very little. Hurricanehink 00:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good news. I found a Spanish site (luckily I know Spanish fairly well), and I got a damage total and a death total. I found some more specifics, but there is absolutely nothing else out there on this storm. Does that qualify it for FA status by default? LOL, j/k, but this is one storm that is doomed in terms of information. Hurricanehink 04:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Same problem with most Mexican storms a bit back in the past, sources are few and far between... but I am a native speaker, so I can translate a few things for this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I stole what I could and ran! You could mention how the sea turtles were affected from this site, or keep saying what's already written of what's here, but I don't think there's anything else out there. You can check yourself though, seeing as you're native. You might catch something I missed. Hurricanehink 03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 68.22.252.165 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have upgraded this to B-Class (for now). Storm05 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine reviewing this again, if you want, but would you mind addressing the comments from the first GAN? That way I (or anyone else) could see what progress has been made. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lacking info

This article is greatly lacking in preparations, impact and aftermath. To expand these sections, look through news reports, situations reports, disaster databases and ReliefWeb. I would suggest withdrawing this article from GAN and work on expanding the article before revisiting GAN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the discussion before this? There is really no other new reports, situation reports, disaster databases, and there is nothing at all of ReliefWeb. Even back then nearly 5 years ago it was nearly at its maximum content. Let me search Google News, I going to update the article a little bit, because its going to take probably at least a month for someone to be willing to assess the article.--12george1 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get from a news archive when the holiday break is over, since I can only access it from school. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I was gone on the holiday break, but I checked Google News before I left and there was almost nothing else out there on Diana.--12george1 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The first sentence has the word "hurricane" three times - try cutting down on the redundancy. Also, landfall should be linked somewhere, so people know what it means early on.
  • Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Speaking of linking, the 1990 AHS is linked twice in the lede. Pick and choose
  • Only there once Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• The second sentence tries to cram far too much information in. Try and re-organize so it's more manageable.
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• You use "Tropical Storm Diana" written out fully twice in the lede. Watch out for redundancies like this.
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• There should be SSHS mentioned somewhere in the lede, seeing as Category 2 is mentioned
  • Rewrote Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overall, the lede has one very large paragraph and one very small one. Try balancing them out.
  • Rewrote both but once more info is added the second one can be made longer. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Tropical wave should be linked
• "but a considerable large amount of thunderstorm activity." - considerable and large are redundant (not to mention grammatically incorrect)
• "and it was likely that Tropical Depression Five had developed at midnight August 4, situated in the southwestern Caribbean Sea" - that is really confusing, with the "likely" part. Please reword it to reflect something a little more assertive of what it actually did. The first sentence of the second paragraph is unneeded, just keep it condensed for simplification
• "the National Hurricane Center assigned the system to the name Diana" - the wording is a bit awkward, with "assigned the system to"
• "Upgrading into a tropical storm, Diana intensified rapidly in the northwestern Caribbean Sea, approaching hurricane status late on August 5" - few problems. First, the first clause suggests that Diana upgraded something, so rewording is needed. Second, you say twice (here and in the subsequent sentence) that Diana approached hurricane status. However (as I learned in the following sentence) its peak winds were 65 mph, which isn't that close to hurricane status. Was it ever forecast to hit the Yucatan Peninsula as a hurricane? If not, I don't think you need the wording "approached hurricane status", since it is implying something that didn't happen. You could say a 60 or 55 mph storm is approaching hurricane status if it was still intensifying, after all
• "Moving over the Yucatan Peninsula, Tropical Storm Diana weakened rapidly just inland, but then ceased to further deteriorate over land." - that definitely should be worded better. Something like "The storm initially rapidly weakened over land, although it retained winds of X until moving over open waters"
• "When Tropical Storm Diana entered the southern Gulf of Mexico, the trough of low pressure in that vicinity weakened and steering currents caused the storm to head westward, where it encountered much more favorable conditions for further intensification. " - please trim, cut, split, fix. Even I was confused what happened, who did what. Also, no need to keep saying "Tropical Storm Diana"
• Little quibble, but the end of the second paragraph suggests that it only was a C2 status briefly for some unknown reason. Because you put the landfall in the following paragraph, I was left a little confused. I think the landfall sentence should be included with the previous one
• "Diana continued to rapidly weakened inland" - aside from being grammatically incorrect (split infinitive, plus "to weakened" is wrong), it is redundant, since the previous sentence said it rapidly weakened.
• Any more preparations, other than watches/warnings?
• Speaking of watches/warnings, the first sentence doesn't have any indication what country (other than Belize) it is referring to.
• "(39 to 73 mph (39 to 118 km/h))" - poor formatting with the double parenthesis - please fix
• "Early on August 7, the National Hurricane Center anticipated on hurricane conditions with 24 hours" - am I missing something there? "with 24 hours" doesn't make sense...
• Was there any impact in Belize?
• "Rough seas was reported mainly between Coatzacoalcos and Tampico, which were closed during the passage of Diana" - the cities were closed? Also, watch for grammar error
• What does it mean that 75,000 people were affected?
• You use "also" in two consecutive sentences...
• The impact is very lacking. For such high damage/deaths in Mexico, there should be more on what the hurricane did.
• Ref 2 doesn't cover this - "In Arizona, some areas received up to two in (51 mm) of rain during the system's passage"
• "Vista reporting .09 in (2.3 m), Del Mar had .08 in (two m), and Oceanside measuring .3 in (0.7 m)" - watch your conversions. 0.3 inches is certainly not 0.7 m, and the rest are wrong too.
• Given how short the aftermath is, it could probably be combined with the Mexican impact, unless you can find some other (real) aftermath (like aid/relief).

While a decent effort, there are simply too many problems with the article. I have no choice but to fail the GA nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Diana/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I originally didn't want to review this, since I did the previous one, but seeing as it's been up here for a month, I'll review it.

I'm glad to see you addressed many of my comments from the previous GAN. Here are the ones you didn't tackle.

• The first sentence has the word "hurricane" three times - try cutting down on the redundancy. Also, landfall should be linked somewhere, so people know what it means early on.
• "the National Hurricane Center assigned the system to the name Diana" - the wording is a bit awkward, with "assigned the system to"
• Any more preparations, other than watches/warnings? I find it unlikely only 300 people evacuated. Were there any shelters opened?
  • Here is a link for Yucatan Peninsula stuff
• Was there any impact in Belize?
• What does it mean that 75,000 people were affected?
• You use "also" in two consecutive sentences... (in Elsewhere)

Here are some additional comments.

• "at midnight August 4" - you should specify that it's 0000 UTC, which isn't really midnight (since local time would be several hours different)
• "When Diana entered the southern Gulf of Mexico, the trough of low pressure in that vicinity weakened and steering currents caused the storm to head westward. " - that's still a bit verbose. Try and rewrite it so it's more natural
• You mention the 100 mph twice in consecutive sentences. I think you could get away with just saying "it made landfall at that same intensity", or some other wording of your choice
• "Early on August 7, the National Hurricane Center anticipated on hurricane conditions within 24 hours, and as a result, a hurricane warning was issued for Nautla to Le Pesca" - the "anticipated on" doesn't work too well
• The sentence covering the California rainfall doesn't mention Diana at all, and the HPC report just says the system dissipated over Arizona. There is no mention of "bringing heavy rainfall to the region". However, here is a Link that covers actual impact in the SW US and mentioning Diana

IMO, the article doesn't feel like it has enough info, for a storm that's only 21 years old and caused 139 deaths and $90 million in damage (and was retired). If I read the Mexican impact section up until the summary sentence, I would've assumed only 10 deaths or so, given the examples of damage in small areas, but lack of overall epic carnage. Overall, there should be more on what the hurricane did. In just a short search, a lot more useful info was found using Google news. I suggest you go through the Google news archive and get as much as you can, as the article is lacking too much right now for me to pass its GAN. However, the work might be doable in a week's time, so I'll put it on hold. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-GA review review

• There really seems to be info missing. Compare Diana with Hurricane Gert (1993), which caused less deaths and only did slightly more damage. Do some Google book and Google scholar searches. For that matter, get sources from Lexis Nexis, and find Texas impact.
• "Due to the interaction with land" - just "Due to land interaction"
• "before losing all tropical characteristics" - is this true? The remnants had some tropical characteristics, such as convection and winds, I'm assuming. Why not just say when the surface circulation dissipated here?
• You don't mention non-Mexico effects outside of the lede.
• "that emerged into the Atlantic from the west coast of Africa on July 27" --> "that exited western Africa into the Atlantic on July 27".
• "assigned the system to the name Diana" - switch this around (assigned the name Diana to the system)
• Mention SSHS in the MH
• "from a low-end category 2 hurricane immediately to a strong tropical storm just within four hours later"
• "Nine hours after all warnings were along the Yucatán Peninsula" - missing word?
• "and a hurricane watch was issued for Tuxpan to Boca de Jesus Maria; a hurricane watch notes" - find a way to remove two close usages of "hurricane watch"
• "the National Hurricane Center anticipated on hurricane conditions" - remove the "on". This is the third review of the article that has mentioned this.
• Was there any impact in Belize?
• "On the offshore island of Cozumel" - I'd specify where, since Mexico is a big country
• "While crossing over the Yucatán Peninsula, Mérida reported" - so Mérida crossed over the Yucatán peninsula?
• "37 and 45 mph (59.5 and 72.4 km/h)"
• "according to the National Weather Service" - the US NWS?
• Get clarity on the death/damage total in MX.
• As I asked in the first GA review, "What does it mean that 75,000 people were affected?"
• [1] - add this for more CA impact. It's sad that there's more info on California than Belize.

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Diana vs Gert

These two hurricanes were Category 2. Both killed over 100 people; both also had winds of a hundred miles per hour. If Diana was retired, Gert should have also been retired. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Image..

The image in Gert and Diana are the same. Which one is which, because some readers will get confused by this.@Destroyeraa, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, HurricaneTracker495, SMB99thx, and MarioProtIV: which is which? Cyclone Toby _contribs 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

They're similar for sure, but they're not identical. They both happened to hit the same place around the same intensity, so naturally they look similar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)