Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Ivo (2019)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTropical Storm Ivo (2019) 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
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2021Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Ivo (2019)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely well-written. However, I found a handful of minor issues. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I would also specific that Ivo was the 9th named storm of the season.
  • peaking the next day with winds of 70 mph (110 km/h) and a pressure of 990 mbar (29.23 inHg). It should be specified that these winds are maximum 1-minute sustained winds.
  • Increasing wind shear caused the storm's intensification to level off later that day as the system turned towards the north-northwest. Add a comma after "later that day".
  • Hundreds of homes and streets were inundated by floodwaters and mud as a result of torrential rainfall and multiple rivers overflowing. Add a comma after "and mud".
Meteorological history
  • The second tropical wave tracked through the region during this time, sparking a further increase in convective activity. Did the second tropical wave merge into the first disturbance, or did it remain separate and only contribute to convective development? The article doesn't make that clear.
  • Shortly after peaking, Ivo's forward crawl slowed down to 12 mph (19 km/h) as the western edge of the ridge weakened. What speed was the storm moving at prior to the slowdown?
  • Ivo quickly turned towards the northwest and later north-northwestward early on August 23, Change "north-northwestward" to "the north-northwest". This is a grammar issue.
  • Continuous wind shear bombarbed Ivo, causing the mid-level circulation to separate and leaving only a small area of convection near the center. Maybe I didn't read this closely enough, but did the mid-level circulation separate from the convection, or the low-level circulation? Both are different, and each would have their own significance.
  • Cold 75 °F (24 °C) sea surface temperatures below and dry and stable air aloft caused all remaining convection to dissipate, Change "below" to "below the system", to make it more clear.
  • The low became stationary on August 26 and turned towards the southeast under the influence of a low-level steering flow, which was located west of the Baja California peninsula. Add a comma after "towards the southeast".
Preparations and impact
  • in the Elota Change to "in the Elota Municipality", as the current wording sounds awkward.
  • the left bank of the Baluarte River Is this the west bank of the river? It would be nice if this could be clarified.
  • Streets were closed to traffic in the city to prevent waves I assume that these waves as from the Pacific Ocean, or did they have another source?
  • the towns of Chinitos and Melchor Ocampo were left isolated after water from an irrigation channel significantly damaged the Ford bridge. Add a comma after "were left isolated".
  • Six businesses and 25 homes were inundated and 11 cars were stranded. Add a comma after "25 homes were inundated".
Aftermath
  • worked to drain their fields to prepare for the next agricultural season after the storm inundated the fields with up to 170 mm (6.7 in) of water. Add a comma after "agricultural season".

These are all of the issues that I found. The writing is pretty solid. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • I didn't find any issues with any of the citations. However, if you plan on taking this to FA, I would recommend adding the translated titles to each of the foreign language sources.
Copyvio check

Final

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am going to ✓ Pass this article. Congratulations on another GA! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy

[edit]

It seems bizarre to me that Ivo, which formed well offshore of Mexico and remained as such for its entire lifespan, could've caused the flooding described in this article. Plus, the NHC never even acknowledged the possibility that Ivo could've affected the Mexican coast during its lifetime, and its TCR further states that Ivo caused no reported damage or casualties. Is it possible that Mexican news organizations might've incorrectly attributed flooding from an unrelated storm system to Ivo? A similar case occurred with 1982's Tropical Storm Aletta. JayTee🕊️ 23:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JayTee32: Such an assumption is WP:OR without sources stating that's what happened. Besides the fact, the NHC doesn't have the time to check every news site in foreign countries for damage and deaths and thus things get missed if the government of that country doesnt report it or the NHC doesn't find it when performing its check. I emailed NHC to ask them. Noah, AATalk 23:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah I'm aware that making that assumption in the article itself would violate WP:OR; I'm just suggesting this is a possibility that I feel should be looked into. Please let me know what the NHC says in their response. JayTee🕊️ 23:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah any update on this? JayTee🕊️ 05:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NHC has sent no response. Noah, AATalk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Ivo_(2019)&oldid=1210974419"