Talk:Tropical Storm Lidia (1981)

Tropical Storm Lidia (1981) 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
January 25, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 10, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the 1981 Pacific hurricane season, Tropical Storm Lidia caused more damage and casualties than Hurricane Norma?

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Lidia (1981)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You should get a pic for the Infobox~~

I've added an image. — Iune (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where exactly did the depression form? A mileage to the nearest city would be more useful than "almost due south"~~

Done

- Ehh, my bigger issue is "almost due south". I'd rather see a mileage to the Baja Peninsula than to Socorro Island, since people are more likely to have heard of the former. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"~~Ahead of a southwesterly flow over Mexico and front," - that wording is quite awkward. Is "front" not supposed to have "a" "the" "cold" before it?~~

I changed it to a"frontal boundary" so, I suppose this is Done

No, it's not done, the wording is still awkward. "ahead of a flow and front" is what it essentially says. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahead of a southwesterly flow over Mexico[1] and a front." - that isn't a sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to put a comma there instead of a period. fixed.

~~Also, little semantics issue, but how can it turn north-northeast if (per the track map) it was moving north-northeast after it first formed?~~

Done

- But now you say "moved to the north-northeast" in one sentence then "turned to the north" in the following sentence (and then "continued heading north" in the next). That's a few too many directional statements, IMO. Why can't you just say "Ahead of a front and a southwesterly flow over Mexico, it moved generally northward." That way you don't have to describe the minor turn to the north. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can it turn to the north if you never indicate its initial movement? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed.
~~"turned to the north and intensified into a tropical storm, and was named Lidia" - too many "and"s~~

Done

~~"at 000 UTC time Ocotber 7" - spot the two mistakes?~~

Done

- You really shouldn't say {{|done}} when things aren't done. There is still a typo. Also, don't forget to link UTC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~The wind speed in the MH prose is inconsistent with the Infobox~~

Done

"Despite encountering 81 °F (27 °C) water, Lidia slowly weakened as it moved towards southern Baja California." - the info about the water temperature doesn't mean anything to the outside reader. Is that warm/cold? Favorable/unfavorable?

Done

- No, not done, because there still isn't any context to the outside reader. What does "Despite encountering warm sea surface temperatures of 81 °F (27 °C)" mean to the non-hurricane reader? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I fixed that
    - No, the wording still doesn't say anything about why the warm waters means anything. And BTW, when you link Baja California, I don't think that's the area that you're talking about. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded again.

I changed it to how it should read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The tropcial cyclone passed over the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula on 1700 UTC October 7" - spot the typo? Also, an exact landfall location would be good.

Found the typo, the MWR did not mention its exact landfall location.

You can use the best track, find the closest city it passed to. That would be more useful than what's there now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Longitude/Latitude Calculator.

"; at the time of the landfall Lidia was located about 67 mi (108 km)" - what does that mean?! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, fixed. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Two hours later, Lidia crossed the Gulf of California" - so it crossed the Gulf within two hours?~~

Done

- No, not done. It still reads that the storm crossed the GoC in two hours. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reworded. It crossed Baja into two hours, not the gulf of California.
~~How strong was it at Lidia's second landfall?~~

Done

"crossing over Mexico, Texas, and into the Southern United States, ultimately causing a frontal wave." - two things. First, isn't "crossing over Texas and into the Southern United States" redundant? Texas is part of the south. And, what does "cause a frontal wave" mean?

Done

- Are you sure that the storm caused the formation of a front? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am sure.
  - Well, that's not what the source says. And tropical cyclones don't generate fronts that easily. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good call. According to the source, it spurred a frontal wave. I reworded it. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone
~~Were there any preparations?~~

I could not find any.

~~When you mean "heavy rainfall in Mexico", you should mention the peak rainfall there too. That keeps the info nice and organized.~~

Done

- ~~"Tropical Storm Lidia caused Flash flooding" - do you see the issue now? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~"Flash flooding sent water down a dry river bed in Pericos. That flood killed forty people, mostly children" - is there any way you can combine the two short sentences?~~

Done

- ~~I'm not a huge fan of the "and thus killed forth people"~~ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in impact is rather long. Any chance of splitting it? It seems rather disorganized at the moment. There is a listing of deaths at every location, with some random damage interspersed

I split it up, and tried to organize it.

~~You should inflate the damage total~~

Done

- Actually, the current wording is pretty awkward. "and caused at least $80 million (1981 USD) or $193 million (2010 USD) in damage." - that sounds like there are two possible damage totals. It doesn't indicate that the 2010 total is just the 1981 total inflated. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
Have you tried searching for more info in Spanish sources? The info seems a bit light right now for such a deadly storm.

Since Lidia occurred before the internet age, I never checked for Spanish sources until you asked. As expected, I did not find any info related to the storm.

Well, that's a shame because I found some links that could be useful for the article. [1] [2] for example. However, I didn't find anything substantial, so I won't hold the article back on comprehensiveness grounds. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold for now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous version that I wrote before YE got to it. Would reverting to that version and making the necessary wikifications improve the prose? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the organization a little more (sans the mention of retirement/future names, which is unnecessary, as well as having split impact/aftermath, which isn't really needed). Yours has a bunch of paragraphs in the impact, which probably should be combined. The writing certainly is better, although some of the issues I brought up still apply to yours. Is the content any different? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is more or less the same. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article isn't perfect, I'd say it's good enough, so I'll pass the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

In the lead, this first statement is innaccurate per reference number 1: "Tropical Storm Lidia was the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclone of the 1981 Pacific hurricane season." According to that pdf, casualty and dmg estimates were not recorded for a number of tropical cyclones that season. I'd suggest a minor rewording of that statement, to avoid a possible WP:OR leaning. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about deleting your comment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Just want to be sure this is addressed, so the article's pending GA status will not have any points of contention after the fact. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has been fixed, it states in the pdf that there has been more causalities than Norma.