Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Paulette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Landfall or not?

[edit]

I do value the source in the article that says Paulette made landfall on Bermuda, but the NHC never explicitly said that it did. All it said was the Bermuda was in the eye. Furthermore, satellite imagery showed that at Paulette's closest approach, it swung ever so slightly to the right and the center of the eye never went over Bermuda. I'm more willing to say that it made a direct hit on Bermuda rather then it made landfall. Thoughts?ChessEric (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a horse a piece. The Washington Post is generally a reliable source, though the columnist might not know what actually qualifies as a landfall. On the other hand, I would not go based on radar or satellite images, since interpreting those would be original research. Maybe we could keep it out for now and see if it's included in the TCR. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: I stand corrected. Advisory #30 said the northeastern part of Bermuda was hit by the center of the eye so never mind. LOL!ChessEric (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

[edit]

We should add a records section for how long this lasted, and for it being the earliest "P" storm. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

So according to TCR the reformation date was pushed back to 1800 UTC September 20th, although the article still says regeneration was on the 22nd which was the estimated peak after reformation. WarDestroyer88 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Paulette/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JayTee32 (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


At first look, the article appears to have a lot of information and is well-organized. Just appears that some sentence structures and info are more choppy than others. Hurricaneboy23, I will begin the review as soon as possible. JayTee🐦 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Please add Category 2 to the first sentence
  • "The sixteenth named storm and sixth hurricane of the record-breaking 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, Paulette developed from a tropical wave on September 2, and eventually consolidated into a tropical depression on September 7." This sentence feels unnecessarily long. It should be split in two.
  • The next few sentences say twice that Paulette strengthened into a strong tropical storm despite wind shear. I'd recommend summarizing it, such as "Paulette fluctuated in intensity over the next few days due to strong wind shear, initially peaking as a strong tropical storm on (such-and-such date)."
  • Mention initial peak winds and pressure
    •  Comment: Not sure if that is really needed. The reader can figure that out by reading the meteorological history section, such an insignificant fact doesn't need to be repeated twice. Trying to keep the lead shorter since its a pretty long one already. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's fair JayTee🐦 02:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention peak winds and pressure while a Category 2
  • Instead of "it", try using the actual name Paulette every other sentence or more variable words such as "the storm" or "the cyclone"
  • "Paulette's second phase proved short lived" - Preferably change "phase" to "regeneration"
    Yes, but I still feel "phase" is kind of general. Like, is this its extratropical phase? Subtropical phase? Tropical phase? I would prefer if you used a more exact word, but I'll leave the ultimate choice to you, it's not extremely important. JayTee🐦 02:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paulette was the longest-lived tropical cyclone worldwide in 2020, its lifetime spanning 21 days (3.0 weeks)." Was Paulette tropical this entire time? If not, I don't think this is worth mentioning, there may have been other cyclones that had a longer consecutive duration, and at that point we're getting trivial.
    •  Comment: No, Paulette was definitely the longest lived storm of the year. It says that on the article, and can be mentioned here. A hurricane's lifetime is from when it's first called a tropical cyclone in the Tropical Cyclone Report to its last mention in the Tropical Cyclone Report which was in fact, on September 28. Not trivial. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this, but I think Paulette's time as an actual tropical cyclone was limited to September 7-15 and 20-22, if I'm recalling correctly. If you want to say it had the longest lifetime of a tropical cyclone or storm of tropical origin, I think it would be more precise. Could just be a personal nitpick, but that's what makes sense to me. JayTee🐦 02:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. mainland" - replace with "East Coast of the Untied States"
  • "2 people drowned off the coast of New Jersey and South Carolina respectively after getting" --> "2 people drowned off the coasts of New Jersey and South Carolina, respectively, after getting"
    • checkY Done
  • Mention damage in Bermuda right after talking about Bermuda. I feel that the info about the US and Azores should come after.

Met History

[edit]
  • Remove "a type of atmospheric trough", that's explained in preview of tropical wave, which is linked.
  • "The disturbance gained sufficient organization by 00:00 UTC on September 7 to be designated a tropical depression about 1,160 miles (1,865 km) west of the Cabo Verde Islands and about 1,425 miles (2,290 km) east of the Northern Leeward Islands." First, please add "Despite this," to the beginning of the sentence, because we go from "the convective activity remained disorganized" to "the disturbance gained sufficient organization" without a transition. And second, I think we really only need one location.
  • "Paulette moved generally west-northwestward over the warm Atlantic waters and gradually strengthened on September 8, despite the presence of southwesterly wind shear and mid-level dry air in its vicinity, which caused most of its thunderstorms to be dislocated from the low-level circulation (LLC) on satellite images." This sentence is kind of long and clunky, please try to split.
  • "...Paulette accelerated slightly during this time." During what time? September 8? As it moved northwestward? A particular period of hours? Clarify.
  • It held this intensity for roughly 12 hours before wind shear started becoming increasingly hostile, with wind shear levels reaching as high as 50 mph (80 km/h)." I thought wind shear was already hostile? And please don't use both words twice in the sentence.
  • "...which put a halt to Paulette's intensification." Add to previous sentence, as the current positioning makes it unclear whether the trough itself or the shear it generated caused weakening.
  • "...although weakening remained slow." We never said it was slow to start off with. Maybe make a new sentence starting off with "Even with these hostile conditions..." or something along those lines.
  •  Done Reworded to Despite these hostile conditions, weakening remained slow, and the storm's circulation became exposed on satellite images on September 9. codingcyclone advisories/damages 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, Paulette began to be steered towards Bermuda while it continued to intensify, although its intensity was limited by occasional intrusions of dry air." First off, we said earlier that Paulette was already being steered towards Bermuda, so now it's unclear whether it was going in that direction now or it already was earlier. And second, this sentence has two subjects, might need to be split or condensed.
  • "Paulette reached its strongest peak intensity..." Delete strongest.
  • "Paulette started to accelerate to the northeast in coordination with the mid-latitude wind flow north of the high pressure system previously steering it." Change to *"Around this time, Paulette began to accelerate to the northeast, within the mid-latitude flow." We don't need to know what was previously steering it if its already been mentioned.
  • "Paulette completed its transition and became an extratropical cyclone about 350 nmi (400 mi; 650 km) southeast of Cape Race, Newfoundland as it interacted with the baroclinic zone, over the cool waters of the Northern Atlantic, on September 16." 1, could we get a specific time for when the transition was completed by (I don't know if the NHC mentioned that in its TCR or Advisory archive)? 2, move "over the cool waters of the North Atlantic" earlier in the sentence, maybe just before the location, for better flow. 3, if the exact time can be added to sentence, it might be worth splitting in some fashion.
  • "while it accelerated to the northeast late on September 16." We are already aware that it was accelerating on September 16, and it continued this motion and strength on the 17th, so delete date in this sentence.
  • "The powerful extratropical cyclone lost its strength while it turned in a more eastward direction, before turning southeastward and eventually southward on September 18." First, you already used the phrase "powerful extratropical cyclone", so maybe change the wording. And second, what caused it to turn in those directions?
  • During when, the NHC began to monitor it for possible regeneration." "During when" is not a very precise phrase. How about "During this time", since the last sentence ends with September 18.
  • "while convection near the center became less sporadic and organized." The convection was less organized? Then how did it become a tropical storm again?

Second Opinion from LightandDark2000

[edit]

I'll cover whatever JayTee32 missed in his review. In particular, I'll be going over a source review. The citations need to be filled out properly before a GAN. Please note that the standard citation properties (such as the title, author, publisher, and dates) all need to be completely filled out properly for GAs. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Paulette fluctuated in intensity over the next few days due to strong wind shear, Add a comma after "days".
  • On September 14, Paulette made landfall in northeastern Bermuda as a Category 2 hurricane while making a gradual turn to the northeast. Add a comma after "Category 2 hurricane".
  • On the evening of September 15, Paulette began to weaken and undergo extratropical transition which it completed on September 16. Add a comma after "extratropical transition".
  • The hurricane's extratropical remnants persisted and moved southwards then eastwards, and eventually Paulette regenerated into a tropical storm early on September 20 south of the Azores. Two issues here. Change "southwards" to "southward" and "eastwards" to "eastward". Also add a comma after "eventually".
  • and became post-tropical again 2 days later. Change "2" to "two". Unless the value is 10 or larger, we write out the numbers.
  • Paulette was the longest-lived tropical cyclone worldwide in 2020, its lifetime spanning 21 days (3.0 weeks). For this claim, add that this includes the storm's period spent as an extratropical low, prior to regeneration. Also, note that when we refer to the "lifespan" of a tropical cyclone, we usually refer to only the tropical periods. We can list the entire duration in which the storm was active, but if we do this, it has to be specified that it includes the non-tropical portions of the storm's lifetime as well.
Meteorological history
  • The disturbance gained sufficient organization by 00:00 UTC on September 7 to be designated a tropical depression about 1,160 miles (1,865 km) west of the Cabo Verde Islands and about 1,425 miles (2,290 km) east of the Northern Leeward Islands. This is a run-on. Add a comma after "tropical depression".
  • Swap the link to wind shear to the first mention in the section.
  • confirmed that Paulette had intensified into a hurricane at 00:00 UTC on September 13 on its approach to the island of Bermuda. Add a comma after "September 13".
  • Paulette began extratropical transition by September 15 while its wind speeds began to diminish. Add a comma after "September 15".
  • The low gradually lost its frontal features as it continued moving southwards on September 19 while convection near the center became less sporadic and organized. Add a comma after "September 19".
  • Paulette had regenerated into a fully tropical storm. Change "fully tropical" to "fully-tropical".
  • very shortly afterwards, Change "afterwards" to "afterward".
  • cool sea surface temperatures and increasing wind shear took a toll on the system and its thunderstorms began to wane; Add a comma after "system".
  • Dry air and cool sea surface temperatures continued to cause the remnant low's circulation to erode before it turned to the northwest and later took a sudden bend to the northeast, circling a high-pressure system. Add a comma after "erode".
  • By 18:00 UTC on September 28, Paulette had dissipated and became a surface trough just southwest of the Azores. Change "Paulette had dissipated and became a surface trough" to "Paulette had degenerated into a surface trough", or something like that. Make it more concise.
Preparations and impact
  • Multiple observing stations in Bermuda started reporting tropical storm-force wind gusts beginning at 23:00 UTC on September 13 with sustained tropical storm-force winds coming soon after. Add a comma after "September 13".
  • which is elevated at 290 ft above sea level. Convert the unit to meters, using the conversion template. For example: 290 feet (88 m). Make sure that all of the units in the article are converted.
  • The hurricane's eye was so clear during its nighttime landfall that, when it passed over the island, one resident reported he could see stars and planets in the sky. This is a new one. Remove the comma from after "that".
  • The collaboration between the BWS and U.S National Hurricane Center (NHC) was the first in which the NHC provided detailed hourly intensity estimates and forecasts based off of radar images and other weather data provided by the BWS, prior to the radar going offline as the storm's eyewall came ashore. Two issues here. "U.S" should be "U.S." Also, add a comma after "forecasts".
  • The commercial fishing industry in Bermuda came to a stand-still as Hurricane Paulette, Change "stand-still" to "standstill".
  • such as on Coopers Island Nature Reserve or Spittal Pond Nature Reserve. Remove "on".
  • Several islands of Castle Harbour sustained significant erosion on cliffs and caused some of the fortified walls to collapse, due to the heavy surf. This sounds confusing as it is right now. Change "and caused" to "which caused". Also add a comma after "cliffs".
  • and other severe weather events which frequently occur on the island. Add a comma after "events".
  • Bermuda Minister of National Security Renée Ming and Bermuda Premier David Burt appraised the Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) crews who quickly restored electricity for thousands of customers and expressed gratefulness for the lack of damage, This is a run-on. Add a comma after "crews" and after "customers". Change "and expressed gratefulness" to "and they expressed gratefulness".
  • who the latter described as a 'remarkable achievement'. Change "who" to "whom". Also, use standard quotation marks for "remarkable achievement".
  • ultimately did not survive after both of them were rescued. You could make this phrase a bit more concise.
  • The eight year-old child was evaluated, but not hospitalized. I think you meant to say "evacuated" instead of "evaluated" here. (If not, you should use a more clear phrasing.)
  • Nonetheless, Paulette briefly caused thunderstorms on Santa Maria Island in the Azores before dissipating prior to impacting any other portions of the country. Add a comma after "before dissipating".
@CodingCyclone: Thanks for getting all that done. Since LightandDark2000 already covered the Prep and Impact, I will gladly pass the article once the sources are addressed. JayTee🕊️🇺🇸 19:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll get to that now and ping you when it's done! codingcyclone advisories/damages 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio check

Source Review

[edit]

FN is an abbreviation for source, used in many FA reviews. This was done mostly by Destroyeraa, who has experience handling these at the FA level. This source review was done at the FA/A-Class article level, in the event that you plan to take this article to FAC. Comments are from both Destroyeraa and me.

  • FN 1 - The date is September 24; remove the website parameter and change the publisher to Forbes, since IWMI does not fully own the company.
  • FN 2 and all other news sources - Remove the website parameter and replace it with the |publisher= parameter. Use the website parameter only if the website title is significantly different from that of the publisher.
  • FN 3 - The date is not October 2020. Look at AON’s archive to find the exact date, which is in November.
  • FN 4 and all other sources with a first and last name - the last name parameter is not |author=, but rather |last=
  • GENERAL - All NHC sources should be {{Cite report}}, not cite web.
  • GENERAL - The sources must be consistent. Either include the location for all of the NHC advisories, or don't include any at all. I would add the location for each NHC source that is currently missing one.
  • FN 5 and all other sources written by Andrew Latto - First name should be Andrew, not Andy, as written on the the NHC's website.
  • Is there a reason you cite the TCR along with every single discussion or advisory? The original information covered in the operation advisories/discussions do not need the TCR to back them up. The TCR is used 35 times, and this makes the article seem like it relies too heavily on one source. The TCR should be used in each paragraph and for each instance in which the TCR supersedes the operational info, but it does not have to be cited alongside every single advisory. (It should be cited for the formation, peak intensity, and dissipation, though. Along with any other areas where the post-storm analysis noted any changes to the initial assessment.)
  • FN 7 and all other advisory sources - the correct title is without the "Public"
  • FN 8 and all other NHC discussions, including FN 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 - the correct title is without the "Forecast" before "Discussion:". Unless you are citing an actual forecast discussion, don't call any of the regular discussions "forecast discussions".
  • FN 10, 11, 18, 23, 24 - Why is "Paulette" in all caps? This shouldn't be done for any of the NHC's advisories.
  • FN 10 - The last and first names are mixed up.
  • FN 17 - Use the last and first parameters for the author's name.
  • FN 22 - Missing the authors and the date. Scroll to the bottom of the news source and you'll find the authors there.
  • FN 23 and 24 - incorrect titles. Use the actual advisory titles, and none of the words should be completely capitalized.
  • FN 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 - Date format is not in line with the rest of the article. The date should not be written as year-month-day (2020-09-16) but rather Month, Day, Year (September 16, 2020).
  • FN 27 - AP NEWS → AP News
  • FN 30 - Tight Lines is a company/organization, not the author’s name. If there is no given author, leave the "author" field blank.
  • FN 32 - Not an author
  • FN 30, 35, 36 - Publisher is The Royal Gazette (Bermuda)
  • FN 33 - Look closely. The original publisher was AP News, the Deccan Herald just reprinted it. List "AP News" for the publisher and "The Deccan Herald" for the website.
  • FN 38 - Publisher is ABC News
  • FN 39 - Missing the author
  • GENERAL: Portuguese sources: FN 41, 42, 43 - missing dates.

These are all of the issues that I've picked out. I'll let JayTee32 handle the rest. The article is pretty well-written, but the citations could still use some serious improvements. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LND, I did miss a couple things in those first two sections in retrospect. And Hurricaneboy, I'll add to the Prep and Impact what I think needs to be done after you've finished Met History. The sources are very important, but please make sure they are compliance with the list above once the rest of the article has been improved, I'd prefer we take this a section at a time cause I know a lot of work is still yet to be done. JayTee🐦 04:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32 and LightandDark2000: It's all done, unless otherwise noted. codingcyclone advisories/damages 21:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32, Hurricaneboy23, and CodingCyclone: I fixed several more issues in the article, mostly involving formatting issues. Some of the citations still had inconsistent dating formats used, and a couple references were missing the original publication dates entirely. The exact appearance of the citations isn't that important for GANs, but they do matter in FACs. Also, the AON report should have used the Cite report template instead of the Cite web template, and the hyperlink in FN 35 had an issue that went unnoticed. After fixing these issues, I'm now okay with promoting this article to GA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

@Hurricaneboy23 and CodingCyclone: Just wanted to let you guys know I will be inactive until July 3rd or after, as I'm out of town this week. If you finish the source review before then, you could reach out to LightandDark2000 if you want it passed quickly. JayTee🕊️🇺🇸 02:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as all issues have been addressed, I'm passing the article. Thank you for picking up the work codingcyclone. JayTee🕊️🇺🇸 00:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32: You're welcome! Thanks for passing it! codingcyclone advisories/damages 01:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Paulette be the primary topic?

[edit]

Should Paulette really be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? I think it would be reasonable to move this article to Hurricane Paulette (2020) because despite the storm's uniqueness and longevity, it was not particularly damaging nor was it retired, meaning there could (and probably will be) be a much more damaging or notable Paulette in the future. Poxy4 (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are no other "Hurricane Paulette" (or other TCs named Paulette off the top of my head) so it gets PRIMARY by default. The year can be added down the road if/when we get another. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks . Poxy4 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Paulette&oldid=1207674629"