Talk:Tropical Storm Heidi (1971)

Tropical Storm Heidi (1971) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
March 1, 2011	[[==GA Reassessment== This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Heidi (1971)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. I am delisting the article to merge the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)\|Good article reassessment]][reply]	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Heidi (1971)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
It is stable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Three images, both WPCommons hosted public domain images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

The lead sentence notes it was "the 18th tropical cyclone and the 8th named storm of the 1971" - but this information does not occur in the main body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, could you expand the first couple of sentences of the 'Meteorological history' to include some more context of where this storm was placed in the season (18th - 8th) as well as what other storms were happening concurrently?

Nice catch. Added this detail to the MH section. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Monthly Weather Review in reference 1? Why not include the volume, issue, and page number parameters in the citation?

I'm not sure where to find those specifics, to be honest. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info is on the bottom of the pages of the url linked to in citation 1. maclean (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filled out with info from the Hurricane Irene–Olivia article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the large extratropical cyclone over the eastern United States" - did that cyclone have a name? if not, then the sentence should call it a cyclone rather than the cyclone.

Well, since I already mentioned the non-tropical storm over the eastern US, I used "the" in this instance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your logic here. The is a definite article; an is an indefinite. The extratropical cyclone has not been previously mentioned in that section, so the indefinite article should be used. maclean (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it was already mentioned in the last paragraph of the article. "An" would, at least to me, imply another cyclone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does ref 2 show that "Initially drifting northwestward, the depression continued to organize, and it was declared a tropical storm early on September 12.[2]"? - I found the Heidi entry but I can't seem to see how those numbers mean declared a tropical storm on Sept 12

A basic translation of those data is available here, although since it's not a very reliable source I chose to cite the official database. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps. Could you tell me which number/column indicates "was declared a tropical storm early on September 12"? maclean (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 29.20 -74.00 09/12/06Z 40 - TROPICAL STORM is the first line to mention that it was a tropical storm, and the previous entries indicate that it was simply a depression. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the citation used in the article:

46250 09/11/1971 M= 5 9 SNBR= 989 HEIDI XING=1 46255 09/11*271 720 30 0*272 723 30 0*275 728 30 0*279 733 30 0* 46260 09/12*286 738 30 1006*292 740 40 0*300 739 45 1001*308 735 45 998* 46265 09/13*317 728 45 0*327 720 45 0*338 713 45 998*353 703 50 996* 46270 09/14*371 699 55 0*394 693 50 0*416 688 50 0*437 687 40 998* 46275 09/15*455 690 25 1002* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*
These numbers are used to support the sentence Initially drifting northwestward, the depression continued to organize, and it was declared a tropical storm early on September 12. There is no legend or column headings in the reference. All I'm asking is how I do I translate these numbers to that prose. maclean (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translated database I mentioned above is identical in its information, except easier to read and decipher. For that sentence, you look at the following two lines:

5 28.60 -73.80 09/12/00Z30 1006 TROPICAL DEPRESSION

6 29.20 -74.00 09/12/06Z 40 - TROPICAL STORM

"Tropical depression" --> "Tropical storm" means it strengthened into a tropical storm at 09/12/06Z. Previously, while still a depression, it was centered at 28.60N 73.80W, and once it attained TS status, it was centered at 29.20N 74.00W, so it moved northwestward. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is so difficult... Ok, you say this is "identical in its information" to those numbers, so please enlighten me, how do you get from those numbers (used as a reference in the article) to "Tropical depression" → "Tropical storm"? -maclean (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the link. Hope that's sufficient. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the original reference didn't actually verify the claims? Regarding this new reference you added, you had called it a "not a very reliable source" during this review. maclean (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did. But you seem to think it was confusing and inaccessible to those unfamiliar with the topic. Thus I tried to resolve that issue by replacing it with an easier-to-read link. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful review! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

I would like an independent/experienced reviewer to help clear up two items (for the background see the points above):
- WP:GA? 1a. "the prose is clear": is it clear that "the large extratropical cyclone" (in Impact) is the "broad low pressure system" from the previous paragraph (in Meteorological history)?
- WP:GA? 2a&b. Unable to verify some of the content with the citation provided, the reference was switched to one that is not very reliable. ... I just don't know what to do here. I would like some guidance. -maclean (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: point 1, I don't think that's clear to those unfamiliar with the terms. On point two, the link seems okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will attempt to help you deal with the 2nd point Maclean. Im not going to make any bones about it the HURDAT Format is hard to read at first until it suddenly clicks when you compare it with a guide. To explain briefly the data runs across in 4 blocks {00, 06, 12, 18z) and the jump from tropical depression to tropical storm happens when its wind speeds = 35kts.

That describes the first reference that JC used. The second does indeed come from a less reliable source (ie Unisys instead of the NHC), but it is easier to read and contains the same data that the NHC Version contains just in a tider format. As for verifying that the cyclone moved north west: try typing the positions in to a map like Google earth. To JC it might be best to use the "Easy Hurdat" if you know where that is located or link to that article on Hurdat. Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. When the wind speed (the second last column) increased from 30 on 09/11 to 45 on 09/12 the storm changed designations from Tropical depression to Tropical storm. I can also see the longitude/latitude changes for the direction. Thanks. If the current ref is from a less reliable source perhaps the first url would be best. -maclean (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you everybody for your assistance. maclean (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merits of this article

In retrospect, I feel like I wrote this article on rather dubious grounds, basing it largely on a flooding event only marginally connected to the tropical cyclone. Any thoughts on whether it's still justified? Juliancolton (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I also think that the (limited) impact isn't very noteworthy. If it weren't connected to Heidi, I don't think it would've been known by anyone, which sort of defeats the purpose of having a WP:NEWS guideline. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]