Talk:Hurricane Jimena (2009)

Hurricane Jimena (2009) 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
June 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[1]

Strongest Pacific hurricane since 2002's Kenna

It says at the bottom of the article that Jimena was the strongest Pacific hurricane since 2002's Kenna. That is wrong. It was the strongest since 2004's Javier, who's pressure was 1 milibar lower. I tried mentioning this earlier but others out there argue about this. Is this correct? 76.29.112.198 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Javier did have a lower pressure but not a higher wind speed than Jimena. I'm not sure if that's why Hurricane Kenna was put on the article or if the person who added Hurricane Kenna over looked this.Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The winds don't determine strength; the pressure does. Although Javier had winds of 150 mph, 5 miles lower than Jimena, it's pressure was 930 milibars, 1 milibar lower than Jimena. So no, it isn't the strongest since Kenna. 76.29.112.198 (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you (IP) would be right. --Anhamirak 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonora impact

Some potentially useful stuff from the main newspaper in the state of Sonora:

http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400037.aspx - dam may overtop
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400097.aspx - rainfall records shattered in Guaymas and Empalme (and an updated Guaymas record became the statewide rainfall record at 566.8 millimetres (22.31 in), per *http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400140.aspx)
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400064.aspx - Guaymas / Empalme unreachable from the rest of the state as Mexico Federal Highway 15 is closed
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400111.aspx - 15 children stuck in the ceiling of a middle school
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Nacional/03092009/400065.aspx - federal State of Emergency declaration for southern Sonora municipalities
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/399937.aspx - 137 evacuated from Bahía Kino
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/399991.aspx - 393 evacuated near Guaymas
http://www.elimparcial.com/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Noticias/03092009/400054.aspx - 141 evacuated from Navojoa and Álamos

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these all in. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socorro island impact

I see it passed close to there as a strong cat. 4, any impact? HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passed with TS winds, and there is hardly any impact in Socorro I think. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Jimena (2009)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch o' comments

Source for pronunciation? (should be easy)
- Got this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should be longer, considering most storms of that caliber have at least two paragraphs
"When the hurricane struck Mexico on September 3, it caused $59.8 million in damage and killed three people with another two were reported missing." - poor grammar (improper verb structure) and it's trying to say too much. IMO, you should have one sentence for landfall location, intensity, and timing, and another one for impact/deaths. You also don't mention when/how the hurricane dissipated in the lede.
- - I reworded this a few weeks ago. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Tracking westward in response to a mid-level ridge over Mexico, the depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm, at which time it was given the name Jimena.[3] In real time, however, it was not classified until early on August 29 while located 250 mi (400 km) away from Acapulco"
- A few things. First, technically it wasn't given the name Jimena until it was operationally classified as a TS. Second, which direction was it away from Acapulco? Third, when did it actually become a TS (per best-track)
  - I just re-worded that. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article, you have imperial first and then metric. Is there any reason you have Celsius first when you mention the water temperature?
- - The NHC uses Celsius first in their discussions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think somewhere in the article should indicate just how rapid the intensification was. Its winds increased from 60 kt to 115 kt in just 24 hours!
- Yea, that jump in intensification surprised me like crazy while I was tracking the storm two years ago. Added that in. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any additional structural changes while it was rapidly intensifying? Right now it only indicates the appearance of an eye on satellite imagery, but surely there would be some major differences between a TS and a C4
- The discussions were not good, but I did add that the eye became better defined. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Later that day" is a poor way to start off a paragraph, particularly when there was no date reference at the end of the previous paragraph.
- I addressed this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
You should add non-breaking spaces to all distance and speed units
- I recall reading somewhere that non-braking spaces are not a requirement for GA. Tell me if I am wrong though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The cycle continued for another 24 hours, before starting another burst of intensifcation." - before the cycle started another burst of intensification?
- I think I fixed this, Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"However, on early September 1, Jimena was anticipated by the NHC to still be a major hurricane until the hurricane made landfall" - could you rewrite that? It's decent information, just poorly presented
"This did not occur and Jimena steadily weakened . Later that day, Hurricane Hunters found Jimena weaker, reporting winds of 145 mph (230 km/h) and a pressure of 940 mbar (hPa; 27.76 inHg)." - these two ideas could probably be combined into one sentence. Try reorganizing
"About 12 hours later" - from when? The only previous time reference was "later that day"
- I remember fixing this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Three hours later" - see above. That's the beginning of the paragraph, supposedly three hours later from 12 hours later from later that day. Actual dates and times are helpful :P
- Ugh, old habit of mine. Fixed though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It then moved over land, weakening into a Category 1 later that day. [3] Jimena weakened into a tropical storm over land" - kinda redundant
- Merged. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say in the final MH paragraph that it turned to the east, but the track map has it going westward back over BC
- Apprently, I don't know my east from my west :), but I fixed this (I think).
"With wind of 30 mph (45 km/h) this system made a fourth and final landfall near Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur" - aside from grammar problems ("with winds", you mean?), when did its third landfall occur?
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did it degenerate into a remnant low, and when did that dissipate?
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, the high terrain of Guerrero, Colima, and Jalisco suffered mudslides, landslides, and heavy rain from outer rainbands related to the system" - that writing is kinda wonky. The terrain suffered?
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong waves generated by the hurricane and gusty winds forced a boat to arrive late in port." - is that really encyclopediac? For just one boat to be late? I could claim that a snow storm made me late for class, but that doesn't make it better.
- It source was a dead link, so it got removed anyway.

More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A combination of winds and heavy rainfall heavy rainfall, uprooted one tree. with several other trees damaged. In all, the hurricane caused rough surf in the area."
- See above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- A few things. First, one tree was uprooted? ...that isn't very encyclopediac. It'd be as pointless as saying one house was flooded. Also, how can trees be damaged? Finally, "in all" implies some sort of overview, but that wording suggests that surf was the only thing that happened.
"Late on the August 30 (31st in UTC) the Government of Mexico issued a hurricane watch from Bahia Magdalena to San Evaristo in the southern Baja California peninsula." - rather than worry about dates (and the accompanying grammar), I suggest something more useful, such as "X hours before Jimena made landfall, the Gov't of Mexico..."
"In La Paz, residents rushed to get groceries before the stores closed and board up windows" - did the stores board up windows?
"On August 31, civil defense authorities in Los Cabos announced that they would have to evacuate 20,000 families from their homes" - how many were actually evacuated?
I think you should clarify that "The State Department" refers to the US, and not Mexico.
"When the storm was over, Jimena's winds and heavy rain brought devastation as it crossed the Baja peninsula." - did the storm bring devestation after it was over or while it crossed the Baja peninsula? The writing is inconsistent
How did the man die in Mulege?
" and water was 24 in (610 mm) deep" - from rainfall? Burst pipes? Surf?
"Damage there was considered worse than Hurricane John." - that could use some context, such as the year (for example, if John was the last storm to affect the region)
"One bridge in the same location was under 6 ft (1.8 m) of water" - in the same location as John?
"In the town of Puerto Lopez Mateos, half of the cannery buildings were destroyed as well as every wood home was destroyed, thus leaving a quarter of the population homeless." - the middle portion could use rewording, as it has the double verb problem
"Nearby, the storm has wiped out two isolated villages, Punta Abreojos village and Laguna San Ignacio" - define wiped out. Also, why the sudden present tense?
"Although in Bahia Asuncion damages was minor, the villages of Abreojos and San Ignacio Lagoon were badly damaged." - what does the first part have to do with the second part?
"The entire town of Punta Chivato were flooded and damaged, with some being destroyed" - some what?
"floodwaters washed out many cars and livestock. A total of 35,000 were reported homeless" - just saying, the organization implies that 35,000 cars and/or livestock were reported homeless
"Severe damage also occurred in the agricultural sector; 400 hectares of citrus was lost, 80 hectares of greenhouses was destroyed" - that isn't very much. A hectare is pretty small
You give different damage totals for infrastructure and agriculture, and yet only the infrastructure total is used in the infobox. Why? Also, is the damage total for BCS, or all of Mexico?
"The peak 24 hour rainfall record was set by Jimena as it ultimately topped out at 26.1 in (660 mm) during a 24 period." - the ref doesn't say anything about 24-hour totals.
"In addition, a total of 15 people were stuck on the roof of a middle school and was later rescued by air" - poor grammar
"A total of 137 people were evacuated in Bahia Kino,[32] 397 people were in evacuated near Guyams, [33] and 141 people were evacuated from Navojoa and Álamos" - try working on better parallelism
"As of Fall 2009, the International Community " - is the Interational Community a proper noun and a real agency?
Refs 31 through 36 are identical. Surely when they appear as references, there is something different you can say about them. Some other refs aren't done correctly, either.
How many houses were damaged/destroyed? How many miles of roadway were damaged? Any estimates on people left without power?
There are three dead links, and ref 4 is broken (it shows accessdate)

While the article is ok right now, it still has many issues. I'm afraid I have to fail the GA nomination. Sorry YE. Feel free to let me know when these issues are done, or if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I won't mind reviewing this for GA again, but could you go through the old GAN and respond to what you addressed? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Jimena (2009)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"$97.5 million" MXN$ or US$? You need to indicate this for every $ figure from here on in.
- USD. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"El Imparcial" or "Elimparcial"? Is it a newspaper? If yes, it should be italicised.
- It is the second one. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"off Mexico's Pacific Coast" Coast shouldn't be italised.
- It was never italicized. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Coast shouldn't be capitalised. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Two days after developing" --> "Two days after the start of development"?
- No need for the start, but otherwise switched it to "development".Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NHC" should come after the first mention of "National Hurricane Center", and thereafter should only be mentioned as "NHC".'
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"becoming a major hurricane" how's a major hurricane different from a "regular" one?
- A storm winds winds of 111 mph or higher. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimena ~~weakened back to a~~ returned to tropical storm status over land"
- Done.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"brownout reduced visibility by 1/4" what's a brownout and 1/4?
- - It is a SW US term, I wikilinked it. 1/4 is 25%.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Two powerlines also fell ~~down~~" try "fell up".
- Changed, but I don't like the new wording. 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"upgraded into Category 2"
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The The United" duplication
- Epic fail by me.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"180 vulnerable families" what role does vulnerable play?
- Removed it.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Checklinks, there are four dead links.
- Fixed them. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still one dead link. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 1 it's either "Pronounce Names" or "Pornouncenames.com"
- The second one. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 5 check formatting.
- Ugh, I hate this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
standardise date style.
- On the NCDC links, the date is not known, so I include the year, but fixed the rest.YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Issue not fixed – I see both DMY and YMD styles. Plus I don't think "Staff Writer" is really needed for the refs (of course someone has to write it!) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I fixed it (agian), I put "Staff Writer" on there for consistency with other articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End note

I'm very happy with the article; it meets all evert GA criterion. I hope to see this page at FAC. Until then, have fun! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Jimena (2009). 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) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hurricane Jimena (2009). 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) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Jimena (2009). 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) 02:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]