Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bud (2018)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2021 [1].

Hurricane Bud (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first land-impacting Category 4 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Through some digging, I found the storm had done a decent bit of damage in Mexico. NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Destroyeraa

[edit]
  • These two sentences - "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from western Africa on May 29. It traveled across the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean late on June 6." - can be combined. Something like "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from west Africa on May 29, traversing the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean on June 6."
  • Also, west Africa → West Africa. It's a proper noun of a subregion.

Some additional comments:

  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form during the next several days. Where? You mentioned the tropical Atlantic above that but the source says in the EPac.
  • the NHC forecast a near 100 percent chance of development while the system was around 400 mi (645 km) south of Acapulco, Mexico. I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusion. We don't want to get too specific about what the NHC does.
  • You mention "Bud" too much in the MH. Try to replace some of those with "the storm" or "the hurricane."
@Hurricane Noah: ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  • The infobox gives a damage figure of "> $167,600". The lead states this figure is specifically at one particular mall. The text provides figures that add up to that number from specific stores, but notes that "Total damage from the storm in the Plaza Patria mall is unknown". Given that context, I don't think the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, nor do I think this figure should be included in the infobox. Sure we know that the damage was at least that much - but given the scale of what is not included, that could mean anything. (Also are there no sources that provide any other damage figures?)
  • I will just remove the field entirely per off-wiki chatter and change the lead to have a general statement for that damage. There really aren't sources for damage totals in third world countries unless the storm "beats the hell" out of them. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead further states that "At least 100 additional structures were flooded in the city [of Guadalajara]". The text counts over 100 structures damaged, but damaged doesn't necessarily mean flooded
  • Lead says 90 passengers were evacuated from a train, text says from a station - which is correct?
  • The train was trapped in the station by the floodwater according to the sources, but it isn't really necessary to mention being rescued from the flooded train and then taken out of the station. Removed mention of the station. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says "More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage". However, the text says more than 60 homes were damaged, and of those "most" had roof damage - those claims aren't the same
  • Lead says the storm "slowed the growth of wildfires in the Southwestern United States". The text mentions two fires, only one of which is in that area.
  • Why do preparations at the Marquis Los Cabos hotel in particular warrant mention?
  • "Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado." - the source supports the latter two, but I don't see mention of such watches in Arizona, nor do they appear on the map shown

Given these issues, I'd like to see someone spotcheck the Spanish-language sources (which unfortunately I'm not able to do) before striking my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lead accuracy issues for MX sources appear to be sloppiness on my part when writing it up. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think everything is fixed. (Note that I support making Hurricane Bud (2018) FA) MarioJump83! 12:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioJump83: I have asked for the sources to be checked with the utmost scrutiny, which is what Nikki wanted. She won't consider lifting her oppose until after that occurs. NoahTalk 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a list that I will source review on the talk page of this FAC, and will chip away at them. Meanwhile, I listed three things there that should be addressed throughout, and left sample edits: 1) there is more than one El Universal, 2) please add |trans-title= to citations so our readers can know what the source is about in English, 3) there are incorrect curly quotes, and double curly quotes, and double quotes on titles that should be converted to single straight quotes (quote within quote). More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LightandDark2000

[edit]
  • I think that the figure is appropriately included in the infobox. However, I would like to see if there are any more recent sources that have a more comprehensive damage total.
  • As I said above, unless countries report the totals and tally up damage, you won't see any total damage reports. This is especially the case for third world countries like Mexico. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I see More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage. I also noticed that there appears to be an inconsistency when this phrase is compared to what's in the main body of the article. I would like to see this inconsistency resolved.
  • There were some other issues/inconsistencies that I also noticed in the lead. I would refer to Nikkimaria's comments above for those.
  • Consider adding a note in the lead specifying the NHC's definition of a major hurricane, since not everyone reading the article may be familiar with that term.
  • I think that you should also mention that Bud's remnants caused flash flooding in the Southwestern US, since this is another significant impact of the storm.
  • The system continued to organize, spawning a tropical depression around 18:00 UTC "Spawning" sounds a little awkward here. I would suggest changing it to "becoming".
  • Bud reached its peak intensity as a Category 4 major hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 943 mbar (27.85 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on June 12, while located 200 mi (325 km) southwest of Manzanillo. This reads like a run-on right now. Add a comma after "major hurricane".
  • the cyclone's eye had warmed and become well-defined, Currently a little awkward at "and become". I would change this to "and had become".
    Removed. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the convection was decreasing in the northern half of the storm. You don't need the "the" before "convection".
  • The mid- and low-levels of the storm split apart, You could be even more specific by changing this part to "The mid- and low-level circulations of the storm...". It's more explanatory that way.
  • A Radioshack lost over MX$100,000 (US$4850) worth of products. Change "US$4850" to "US$4,850".
  • Heavy rainfall from Bud caused the waters of the Laguna Negra of Puerto Marques to become contaminated with sewage, which in turn sparked a die-off of four fish species. Since it's only 4 species, could you consider naming them? Especially if any of them are threatened or endangered.
  • Actually... I missed the part saying "at least" four species. The source doesn't specifically mention which ones died off. It lists ones sensitive to pollutants and discusses how officials state things need to change or X will die. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado. The given source doesn't mention Flash Flood Watches being issued for Arizona. Could you provide one that does?
  • Bud left mostly minor damage in Baja California Sur. I would change "left" to "left behind".
  • bringing much needed rainfall to the drought-stricken region. Change "much needed" to "much-needed".
  • Rain from Bud slowed the growth of the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado and a fire in southern Wyoming. Could we get a name for the fire in southern Wyoming? Since it's just one fire.

These are all of the issues that I came across. Overall, the article is pretty solid and close to being an FA to me. However, there are a handful of issues that need to be addressed first before it can be promoted. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With these changes, I'm formally supporting this FAC nomination. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Recently noticed the wave of storm FAs. I'll try help this nomination.

Comments on the lead
[edit]
  • "Hurricane Bud was a Category 4 hurricane that brought winds and severe flooding to Mexico"-- Link Mexico?
  • "It was the second named storm, hurricane, and major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season." Supported by a source. Leads are usually encouraged to have as less references, if they can be covered about in the body. Does this qualify the exception?
  • "...hurricane late on June 10, and further to a major hurricane on June 11." Probably "...hurricane late in June 10, and further to a major hurricane the following day" sounds more natural?
  • "...one death occurred in Mexico City"-- I think omitting "death occurred" will make it less repetitive.
  • " peak rainfall total of 6.50 in (165 mm) was recorded in San Lorenzo"-- Perhaps linking to whatever "San Lorenzo" the lead is referring to?
  • Sadly there isn't anything to link to. There isn't an English Wikipedia page for San Lorenzo, Sinaloa. It also doesn't exist in Wikidata or even on the Spanish Wikipedia. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ninety passengers had to be evacuated from a train in Guadalajara after it became submerged in floodwaters." Trivial, but if I were to be the writer of that sentence, I would have it "A train in Guadalajara was evacuated after it became submerged in floodwaters."
  • "In Guerrero state"-- why should there be the word "state", when the linked article is all about the Guerrero state?
Comments on Meteorological history
[edit]
  • "...that departed from the western coast of Africa"-- perhaps linking Western Africa within "western coast of Africa"?
  • "...over the tropical Atlantic"-- perhaps expand to "...over the Atlantic Ocean"?
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America"-- Link South America?
  • "...and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean"-- Link Pacific Ocean?
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean late on June 6. Convection increased a little on June 7 before significantly increasing a day later as a result of a passing Kelvin wave. A low-pressure area formed early on June 9"-- Since both are supported by ref 3, the citation should just be cited after "June 9" since it's repetitive.
  • "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm, receiving the name Bud." The way "receiving the name Bud" is position at implies that "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm" is what gave it the name Bud. If it isn't, then I suggest separating them; if there is an etymology as to where it comes from, probably worth adding an "Etymology" section.
  • The storm reaching tropical storm intensity is what resulted in the naming. We usually don't add etymologies unless it is a foreign name for a storm. Bud is a commonly used English word to boot so I don't think is needed in this case. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico." Is that citation overkill? If no, suggest breakdown (i.e. "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days[6] under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas[7] and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico.[8][9]"; not saying that it is right, just showing an example of a breakdown). GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Preparation
[edit]
Comments on Impact
[edit]
  • "Rainfall totals of 6.20 in (157.6 mm) was recorded in Andrew Weiss, Sinaloa, and 6.01 in (152.6 mm) of rain fell in Alamos, Sonora." Suggest removing "of rain fell" as it is repetitive. And is "Rainfall totals" a spot-on wording? GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Jalisco and Colima
[edit]
  • "A Radioshack"-- correct it to "RadioShack", then link it to RadioShack, perhaps?
  • "Water up to 16 ft (5 m) deep completely submerged a light-rail train"-- link light-rail?
  • "Parks and Gardens personnel used chainsaws"-- perhaps clarify what Parks and Gardens is?
Comments on Guerrero and Michoacan
[edit]
  • "In Guerrero state"-- similar concern with above.
  • "...beaches in Michoacan"-- duplicate link, if you apply the last point in "Comments on Preparation".
Comments on Elsewhere
[edit]
  • "A palapa"-- duplicate link, if above point applied.
  • "Several hectare of chop suey crops"-- Link chop suey.
  • "The La Olla and San Renovato dams overflowed due to excessive rainfall from Bud, causing extensive road flooding and damage throughout the historical district in Guanajuato City, Guanajuato.[63][64][65][66]" Now that's a seemingly citation overkill.
  • "In Mexico City"-- duplicate link.
  • "...at the Taos Regional Airport in New Mexico." Link New Mexico?
  • "...the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado"-- Link Colorado?

These are comments on a thorough read. Additionally, I would note that some sentences have double cites (i.e. "Blablabla.[1][2]"), and I would usually do a breakdown, if applicable. There also seemed to be no alt text on the infobox image. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all my comments resolved. GeraldWL 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SG comment: I can't tell if dates are mdy or dmy (there is a mixture); I could run the script to standardize them, but I don't know which to standardize to. Since it's a Mexico hurricane mostly, would dmy be preferable, or was it written to mdy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In text, in the references, or a combination of both? NoahTalk 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding the question ... for consistency, why would in text differ from citations? Ipad typing, sorry for brevity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference dates have the MLA date style. The text is written as a normal United States-named storm. NoahTalk 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confused :) So, the citations use dmy, but the body of the article uses mdy. And Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines is unintelligible MOS gibberish. But, what the switch in style means is we cannot use a script to make sure dates are correct in either the body or the citations, and we cannot use a template to tell other editors what date format to use. So, I'm not sure this is a good idea, even if someone can figure out what MOS is saying. Anyway, I was only trying to fix a faulty dash on a date range, which is done now. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SG comment: Once sourcing work is done, be sure to put citations in ascending order, sample: Heavy rainfall from Bud generated currents that swept away a child who was crossing a road in the city.[63][29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Jason Rees (Wikicup Participant)

[edit]
I strongly feel that the MH needs love and consolidating as it should only be two to three paragraphs rather than four. After all, Bud wasn't overly significant when compared to other systems and isn't particularly deserving of a four-paragraph MH.
1: "Hurricane Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from the western coast of Africa on May 29. The system had minimal convection as it propagated westward over the Tropical Atlantic during the next several days.[3] The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form in the Gulf of Tehuantepec during the next several days.[4] The wave tracked over northern South America and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean late on June 6." Combine these three sentences into something like "The origins of Hurricane Bud were from a tropical wave, that moved off Africa's west coast and into the Atlantic Ocean on May 29. During the next week, the wave propagated westwards, before it moved over northern South America and entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean during June 6." In conjunction with this I feel that the sentence "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form in the Gulf of Tehuantepec during the next several days" needs removing as it isn't relevant and is something that the NHC do all the time.
2: "Convection increased a little on June 7 before significantly increasing a day later as a result of a passing Kelvin wave. A low-pressure area formed early on June 9;[3] as a result of the system increasing in organization, a tropical depression developed around 18:00 UTC while located 330 mi (530 km) south of Acapulco." --> This would be better presented as "Over the next couple of days, atmospheric convection surrounding the system significantly increased, before an area of low pressure developed during June 9. Later that day, the National Hurricane Center initiated advisories on the system, as it had developed into a tropical depression, while located about 330 mi (530 km) south of Acapulco. Also where is Acapulco?
3:Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm, receiving the name Bud. At that time, the storm had developed banding features – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds – that were wrapping around its center. The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days under the influence of a mid-level ridge that was located over Mexico -> Combine these two sentences into something like: As the system moved north-westwards around a ridge of high pressure, the depression intensified into a tropical storm and was named Bud by the NHC as bands of atmospheric convection wrapped into the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs) 00:26, January 11, 2021 (UTC)
I have implemented these suggestions with some tweaks to avoid having excessively long sentences or removing time references. NoahTalk 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]
@Gog the Mild: I am guessing this should be insta failed per Nikki, Jason Rees, and SG's remarks. There appear to be significant concerns that need to be addressed that multiple others missed in past reviews. Even if I am able to fix the article in a timely manner, two opposes warrants immediate failure. NoahTalk 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: I strongly feel that you are giving up on this FAC way to quickly, as I feel that the issues raised are fixable with a little bit of work.Jason Rees (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noah, I haven't yet seen anything that will lead me to oppose on sourcing; it does need some elbow grease, and perhaps you would rather do that off-FAC, but I haven't found anything horrid yet :) It will just take me some time to get through all of the Spanish-language sources on talk ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Noah I don't think that it works quite like that, although my more experienced colleagues, @FAC coordinators: , may correct me. If you wish to withdraw the nomination to work on it off-FAC, that is fine; you have but to ask. The opposes seem to me to be on fairly readily actionable points - although it may be that I am underestimating the work involved. And opposes are often struck. I don't personally see the need for a quick fail, although clearly you have a fair bit of work to do to turn these two reviewers around. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild and Hurricane Noah: please let me know where you all stand on this, and whether I should continue examining the sources on talk; I am quite behind on a number of things, and would like to prioritize my time :) I can continue to chip away at these if you are still moving forward with the FAC, but I am wondering because the so-far minor issues I have found have not yet been addressed. Just let me know if I should continue (going to check a few more now). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly won't have the time to finish this. I hadn't anticipated my class workload being so great, but I will have 120ish 2–20 minute assignments per week for a single class (foreign language). That's why I haven't been fixing anything recently. I will have to put this one off until I no longer have such a great burden. I will try to fix all the issues with this in the summertime. I guess until then, I will be on an extended hiatus away from WP. I hate to abandon this since it has come very far, but I just won't have enough time to do WP and my studies. NoahTalk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with your studies, Noah, and do not hesitate to seek me out in the future for help with Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for confirming that Noah, I'll treat this as a withdrawal. Look forward to seeking you back here in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Bud_(2018)/archive1&oldid=1000070497"