Talk:Hurricane Heather

Hurricane Heather 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
Date	Process	Result
March 3, 2021	Peer review	Reviewed
June 29, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 29, 2023.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage?

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Arizona Mid‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

B class?

I don't feel comfortable grading my writing here, so I'd like someone else to take a look at the writing for B4. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: B4 is good, what I'm concerned about is B2, as there are no preparations. Try to search for that, and then report back. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll give it a shot. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had no luck, tried what I could think of to search for preparations. There might be some stuff in newspaper archives, but I don't have a subscription to any of them. There's also another source that could be useful at [1], but I'm not sure what's actually included in the source itself, and I don't know how useful it'll be; it's also paywalled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: that's fine. I upgraded it to B, btw, because the rest of the article looks great. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge collapses

@Skarmory: I couldn't find any article specifically written about a bridge collapse in Amado but this one mentions one in Tucson and contains a picture of one "near Amado", unsure if they are the same bridge. [2] FozzieHey (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! That article seems like it'll be helpful overall. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, you can apply for free access to Newspapers.com through the The Wikipedia Library. FozzieHey (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

I've downgraded this to C class given it's missing stuff from Stormdata and probably stuff from Google News. See my archive of old links for more. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential useful sources

Just making a list of these for now that I cannot access:

Southern Arizona Floods of October 6–11, 1977 (should be very helpful, $47.00, accessible via TandF which I do not have access to)
Requiem for the Santa Cruz: An Environmental History of an Arizona River ($39.99 book)
The Frequency of Tropical Cyclones in the Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico (unsure how to get, also unsure how useful it'll be)
Seasonality, spatial coherence and history of precipitation in a desert region of the Baja California peninsula (I doubt this'll be helpful but I'm marking it here)

If anyone can access these, please update the article, as I do not have access to them as of now - I'll see what I can do myself later. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: Ask here. Noah^Talk 23:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Skarmory and all others who worked on the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After some minor tweaks, the prose is at the GA standard. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Cites #5 and 6 appear to be identical (Tucson Citizen), combine. Pass, no further issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Does cite #9 (October 6th) have a headline? What exactly is Cite #20 (Don Hogan) and why is it reliable? Pass, see discussion below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues with OR detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig not effective with these kinds of sources, hold for manual spot check. Pass, none found by manual spot check of newspaper articles etc.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Cannot find anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, seems appropriate for level of damage and historical context, other GAs on similar storms.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are fine and captions are good, though if a higher-quality copyright-free satellite image exists at all, it could be swapped in and that would be an improvement. Pass, improved image found (see below).
	7. Overall assessment.

Cites 5 and 6 bundled; I haven't really bundled citations before, so hopefully this works? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the title of cite 9 to "Rain", which feels a bit weird, but it is the title of the section. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up Cite 20 at WP:RSN, and seemingly got consensus it was an acceptable primary source. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we can go with consensus on this one. Acceptable for GA but probably would not pass FAC review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's one other image on Commons for Heather, and I don't think it's an improvement, given the white space and awkward angle, plus still rather low quality. Outside of that, I can't find anything, though images are not something I'm particularly familiar with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a slightly higher-resolution version, cropped it, and swapped it in - let me know if there's any issues with that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that floods from Hurricane Heather caused Arizona Governor Raúl Héctor Castro to send a helicopter into Mexico? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91023089/storm-damages-homes-and-crops-in/
- Reviewed: [[]]
- Comment: No QPQ needed (2nd DYK nom); will try to do one anyway, though.

Improved to Good Article status by Skarmory (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Heather; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Skarmory: Good article. But i don't find the hook all to interesting. Is there another one that can be proposed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but here's an

ALT1: ... that Hurricane Heather caused the normally-dry Santa Cruz River to reach a 100-year flood stage? (Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00431672.1978.9931855; it's paywalled but I can email a scan to a reviewer if needed)

If that doesn't work (or some variation of it), I'm out of ideas. I don't think there's much for a DYK hook here, and I'm not that confident in my abilities to find interesting hooks. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A ping to Onegreatjoke. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: hook is alright. Though, you should fix the redirect of the santa cruz river. Also, you could just quote the sentence(s) that support the hook here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link to Santa Cruz River. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]