Talk:Hurricane Patricia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Patricia (Spanish pronunciation: [paˈtɾisia]) was the second-most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded in the world, with a minimum atmospheric pressure of 872 mbar (hPa; 25.75 inHg)" - technically, it wasn't. A pressure of 879 was recorded, which is higher than the 876 mbar recorded during Typhoon June of 1975. Maybe say "second-most intense tropical cyclone on record worldwide"? With these sorts of records, you have to be really exact in the wording, and I'm not sure this is exact enough.
- Altered the wording as specified. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The country of Mexico should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph of the lead (perhaps when you mention Gulf of Tehuantepec?)
"Preliminary assessments indicate hundreds of homes to be destroyed and seven fatalities are linked to the hurricane, directly or indirectly." - you should emphasize this refers to the storm impacts in Mexico, as "indirectly" might include the precursor. Also, later in the article, you say "Six deaths occurred due to direct or indirect effects of the hurricane, all in Jalisco." This is inconsistent.
- The extra death was during an evacuation, so it's not mentioned in the impact section. Clarified this in the lede so there's hopefully less confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any updated damage total?
- Not that I can find. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ultimately, 8,500 people evacuated prior to the storm's arrival, including 2,600 in Cabo Corrientes." - this seems extremely small, compared to the number of people the government tried to evacuate. Did 8,500 people use the shelters, perhaps? It's probably impossible to tally how many people evacuated to friends and relatives' houses.
- The cited report states that 8,500 were evacuated by air and land, might seem low but that's what was reported. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mexican Red Cross prepositioned food for 3,500 families.[22] Approximately 30 kg (66 lb) of aid was pre-positioned in Colima" - dash or no dash?
- No dash! :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Impact from precursor disturbance" section could use a bit more context, something like "The precursor of Patricia was a large and sprawling system that affected much of Central America for several days." It needs a bit more of an introduction, especially to establish it as a different kind of impact than the high winds that affected southwestern Mexico. As this article will likely be a popular one for the next few years (until there's a more powerful one, which I hope won't happen for a while), I'm going to push for a bit more context and details for the layman.
- Better now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage was pegged at 1.4 billion pesos (US$84.1 million)." - where? Quintana Roo or eastern Mexico? Or Chetumal?
" and/or uprooted" - not sure how I feel about "and/or" in an encyclopediac article, but it stood out to me
- Don't think it's a big issue, personally, but changed it to just "or". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Two of the victims died in the wreckage and the other two died after being brought to the hospital." - minor and pedantic note, but shouldn't it be "brought to a hospital"? You never mention the hospital before, so it doesn't need the definite article. Grammar rules!
" The ship was subsequently deemed a likely total loss." - any update?
- Situation was just updated the other day, actually. Scrapping began earlier this month; updated the sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Insurance specialists suggest the losses across Texas, including those unrelated to Patricia, could reach US$3 billion." - any update?
- Updated the section with NCDC details...nowhere near $3 billion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all it's a good article. Just make sure it stays up to date if you plan to further this article. One little note that came across my mind - you don't mention that the area the storm hit were pretty poor. See List of Mexican states by GDP - the areas affected are some of the poorest of Mexico, and that's a pretty important lasting factor IMO. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think (hope) that's everything. Many thanks for the review, Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]