Talk:1973 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Preliminaries

I don't know why no one has reviewed this article, but I will be happy to review it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No quick fail criteria apply. Full review to follow. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If some of the storm sections seem short that is due to a genuine lack of information; oftentimes, the Monthly Weather Review only has one or two paragraphs about a storm. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of these storms came and went out in the middle of nowhere. I can see why there's little coverage.

I know you've been waiting a while for a review, I'm sorry to make you wait more, but it will be another day or two. If you would like to work on the article while you are waiting, reference 1 has gone 404. Can you track it down? Also concerning refs, there are a lot citations to a much smaller number of sources, and the two section reference format should be used. A section with "Notes" followed by a section with "References". See WP:CITE if you are unfamiliar with the format. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this [1] The NHC have temporailly removed the data so they can quailty control it. Also i would doubt this needs a section with notes and then references since all the references are taken from the web and no books are usedJason Rees (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now we know what happened to the source. I hope it comes back soon. I can't verify the article without it-- there's a lot of information from it used in the article. I will discontinue reviewing the article until the source comes back. We can just sit on this for now. If the source doesn't come back, in say two weeks, I recommend that as the nominator, you, Miss Madeline, withdraw the nomination. I wouldn't want to fail the article because a critical reference goes out for the reason it did. The article can, of course, be renominated later when the source returns.

As to the reference organization, the Monthly Weather Review is a printed academic journal, and the reference is one article in it. The article is only reproduced online in PDF format for viewing convienence. The wrong citation template is being used for it. Let's use the one for journals instead. (You can include a URL using the journal template). BTW, we need more specific information to complete the reference: the volume number and which issue of the monthly journal the article was in which also tells us when it was published. Both of these can be gleaned from the top or bottom of the article pages. Without them, if the article goes 404 then we are stuck, otherwise it can be found in university libraries and such.

If you are not a professional acedemic, all of this can be a bit confusing as you may be unfamiliar with how academic journals are published. I am happy to answer any questions about it.

Because the article is a bit long at 11 pages in length, multiple citations with specific page numbers are better (as you folks have done), rather than just making one citation of the complete article with a kind of large page range. The problem is that the full reference is repeated 8 times. Why would we do this? Why not just use the two section format and list the full reference once? I don't think this format is limited by rule to books. Wherever it is useful, it can be used. Things are just more concise and clearer this way. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset)I changed the template in the MWR cites to {{cite journal}}. However, Thegreatdr has just informed me that additional information on rainfall amounts for the more minor landfalling storms will become available starting sometime in June. The additional changes that result from that would be more sentences of the sort that give rainfall maxima for Irah and Jennifer. This additional information means that the article would have a future period of instability and will not have all possible coverage when the rainfall information becomes available. For that reason, I am going to withdraw the nomination tomorrow unless someone objects. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, and the "best track" source is still being quality controlled, I am withdrawing the article from GA nomination for the reasons specified above. When the coming instability comes to pass I will probably renominate this article.

Final GA Review Status: Withdrawn from GA nomination before being reviewed. The record of this discussion will be preserved on the article's talk page, and the GA review page will be deleted. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this will be annoying but the dead link is back up - you just need to change the second year to 2008. :) Jason Rees (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, does the nominator want to continue, then? I don't think rainfall amounts for individual tropical storms are a main aspect of a hurricane season article, but rather several minor points, and lack of these data in and of themselves don't disqualify the article for GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since someone objected, I'll continue if people want to continue. I'm just worried that it might be unfair to others to see one withdrawn and then quickly "renominated" and reviewed. I suppose that I'll go review one to make up for it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seems to me you've waited long enough for this article to be reviewed twice. But it is always good karma to review good articles. So let's continue. I'll have the review ready in a few days. And thanks for tracking this down, Jason. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that Miss Madeline. I've had GA articles wait for six weeks and be quickly delisted for no apparent reason, only to be relisted and reviewed within days of their second attempt. Normally, GA reviewers take your overall wait into consideration, because it's not like you haven't been waiting for a while for a GA review. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Review

After all this time, here is a review.

The article has useful information, highly informative diagrams and pictures, and is well organized and clearly written. The are very few errors in English usage (thanks for being thorough). I have corrected the few I found. The article is stable and NPOV. Generally most other criteria are followed, a few exceptions I note below.

The big problem is addressing all the main aspects of the topic and not missing too many major points as GA articles must. Also the article is a lot of dry fact after dry fact with not enough more. An article that is just data is probably not well written enough for GA.

Addresses the Main Aspects/major points

The article summarizes the when and what of each storm very nicely, but lacks information outside of this-- comparison to other hurricane seasons, which is a main aspect of the topic.

• The article minimally compares this season with other seasons for the same zone. Can we elaborate a little? Accumulated cyclone energies, deaths, destruction, number of hurricanes or storms are all data that could be used to compare to other seasons and to averages. Also is it possible to elaborate on the meteorological reasons why the season was so weak?

I added the long term averages. As far as I can tell there is no particular reason why the season had lower than average totals.

That's an improvement, whatever you can find helps.

• What about comparing this zone to other zones in the same year? Are there any unifying themes that apply here, like a global weather phenomenon that affected all zones in the Pacific or the world?

Even if there are no known global phenomenon going on, we can still compare this season to the Pacific typhoon season and the Atlantic hurricane season (or others too).

I added another fact. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. It would be good to add how active the Pacific typhoon and Atlantic hurricane seasons were in 1973, to make the article a little more interesting for the general reader.

Comprehensiveness is not required, and not everything I'm mentioning here is even a major point, but if the article is too incomplete, it can't be passed. Also adding the information I'm talking about in this part of the review will help elevate the article out of being just dry facts.

Other points that could be covered (and feel free to find anything else to add to the article):

• Who makes all the data and how? Were there any predictions about what the season would be like?

Seasonal forecasting was not done at this time. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a paragraph mentioning that who did the forecasting/data collection and where they were responsible for doing that. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. (who makes the data) Now the paragraphs all start the same, can we remove "This season" from the last one? It might also be nice to mention who runs the centers.

Done. (paragraph start repetition) The NWS info doesn't really say that NWS ran the centers or was their parent agency etc.. If you are trying to say that then it's best to be explicit; as it is now the info seems ambiguous and irrelevant, and the article is better without it. Also, the coverage description one-sentence paragraph is good, but you might want to take a second look at it. It seems to be just dangling (it really belongs to the previous paragraph).

The first sentence of the About CPHC source says (emphasis added): "The Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) is co-located with the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Honolulu." The one for the EPHC was added by (I think) Thegreatdr to the EPHC article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Done. (stray paragraph) I'm sure it's all true. I imagine you don't have a source that explicitly says who runs the centers is the parent agency. That's OK, it's not a deal breaker. (BTW, I am not a fan of how the OR rule is written)

• Two powerful hurricanes, Emily and Doreen, occurred at the same time and fairly near each other. How about discussing them together and combining their sections (tracking photos too)? You could talk about how close they came to each other or the other's tracks. And how common this is.

The general wikiproject policy is to discuss each storm individually. I'll go and see about possible interactions tomorrow.

I reread the MWR source and it appears that Emily and Doreen had no effect on each other. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's at least talk about the event in the text of the article. How close they came together, path, common timeline, storm intensity, and location of origin are things that can be added. I have the general reader in mind here.

When Emily reached its peak intensity, Doreen was a Category 1 hurricane far away. When Doreen peaked, the pre-Emily tropical depression had just formed. Basically, neither tropical cyclone was powerful at the same time. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.

References

• All numerical datum need specific citations for GA, and there are some in the article that don't have them. I've marked them with fact tags. In some cases, the immediately preceding sentence has a citation that might cover the tagged statement. If it does, that's fine, I won't require the citation again, just remove my tag. Also there are a few statements that could be controversial, usually claiming something is a record or the most, or the first. Again, I've marked them with fact tags.

I had trouble adding fact tags to some of the infoboxes used for tropical storms. Doesn't like them in the wind parameter. These still need citations. Does anyone know how to go about getting the template fixed? Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When ever there is a bunch of text, and then a cite, the cite is the source from all text preceding it until the beginning of the paragraph or the previous cite. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I removed one fact tag for that. And another is now cited in the hurricane box, so I removed the fact tag for that too. The two left are about potentially contentious claims, can we please get a citation for each at the end of their respective sentences?

I added them.

Those miniboxes don't let me add a citation after the windspeed (a parameter error pops up), so I added sentences to those storms' sections so as to allow me to cite their windspeeds. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.

• There are 8 instances of the Monthly Weather Review article. Can we please combine these? It needs to be clear this is one journal article. Maybe one ref with a page range. I mentioned before it was too long a source for one citation, but I think now it would be better overall this way.

I'm not sure how someone seeing a bunch of citations, all by the same author, from the same issue of the same journal, could possibly think that they are different articles, but nevertheless I have combined all MWR references into one.

Done.

• In citation 1h, the information cannot be verified by the citation alone. We need an additional citition from another source.

Added.

Done.

Other

• Of these, five were tropical storms, four were hurricanes, and three were major (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale) There were actually 7 hurricanes, I understand you mean cat. <=2 but this needs rewording in some way.

Reworded.

Done.

• Rain fell over parts of Mexico, with the highest total being 10.24 in (260 mm) at Sierra de la Laguna.[12] I think you mean heavy rain.

Changed.

Done.

• The description of Skylab and Hurricane Ava is in part inaccurate and is incomplete. See Hurricane Ava and the source. This might help the article being more than just a collection of facts.

Fixed.

Sorry, my point is that Skylab and another satellite just happened to be directly over Hurricane Ava, and took pictures and collected data. This is quite a coincidence. And an interesting point for the general reader.

Another satellite was there too, and the paragraph is awkwardly worded.

I tried making the paragraph flow better. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Flows nicely now.

• The article needs to talk about the boundaries of the area covered by "Eastern Pacific hurricane" e.g. clarifying typhoons vs. hurricanes for the general reader, and does this article encompass Pacific hurricanes off of South America or do they not occur there?

Done. But I think we'll need something more in the lead.

No known tropical cyclone has occured off the Pacific coast of South America.

You can still pipe links to the SPAC season for that year though since RSMC Nadi's AOR stops at 120W which is well inside the EPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Huricane Lillian's direction of travel needs to be specified.

Done. But now four sentences in a row lead off with Lillian or Hurricane Lillian.

Changed.

Done.

:*The hurricane track photos need some kind of readily accessible legend to make clear what the colors mean, although it is nicely shown all over the place. There is one at the bottom of the article. Can you move it someplace more accessible? And how about redoing the legend using circles rather than squares, which will make it very clear it applies to the circles in the pictures.

I added another copy of the legend to the storms section. The legend is made using template:Saffir-Simpson small and I don't know how to make coloured circles.

You would have to make it by doing a screen capture, and then cropping and altering it with a paint program. It's not a deal-breaker if you don't want to, but it might be a cool innovation.

The legend seems repetitive with the storm timeline moved where it is now. If you want to get rid of the legend there, I have no objection.

Done for GA.

• The hurricane season chart needs a title.

Do you mean the timeline?

Yes (that's why it needs a caption :) ). You could also move the timeline to the top of the section and leave it without the title.

I moved it under the heading. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.

I haven't talked about the lead. Because of the need for more breadth, I'll wait to examine that. But feel free to summarize more about the season.

The lead is a good summary of the article's contents, but:

• Can you summarize either in the lead of the article or in the the storm section the travel paths, and place of formation of the storms as much as you can?

The travel paths addition is good. I think we can be more exact about the places of formation. Something using "off the coast of Mexico" would be my suggestion. Please cite the map as the source for any numbers. And you could add another sentence along the lines of "but with the exception of blahblah storm" as well if it helps.

Done.

I use Done. to indicate an issue has been improved to standards, so please don't use that, or any icons to indicate you've completed something. A brief comment below the issue works well, also any other brief comments can go there. More extensive discussions should be put in a new subsection below this review. Additional comments by others can also be put there.

The review is now On Hold pending improvements. If you have any questions, comments, etc. I will be checking in every day and happy to respond. Thanks again for improving the encyclopedia. I hope you find the review useful towards that end. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We are nearing the 7 day limit. I can hold the review open longer to allow further improvements. (I am undecided if the article addresses all the main aspects and addresses enough major points as it is now). Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're playing beat the clock and trying to add one more major point before time expires. I'm just going to hold the article for another 7 days from today, so any additional information that is added can be well researched and copyedited. Feel free to take your time. If you've done all you want early, just let me know and I'll finish up.

Also, I just want to add that GA looks at the article from the standpoint of the general reader as well as the specialist, and that some of the main aspects/major points I'm talking about may be of more interest to the former. And we're not directly applying or concerned about Wikiproject guidelines here. They are good things and useful, but they are not part of the GA standard, nor are they official Wikipedia rules or guidelines that articles must follow. So they can be bent if it works to improve the article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to do the final review on Wednesday (GMT -7) so please finish any further additions before then. The article is looking good. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Evaluation

I have given the article a final go through, and this is a Good Article. I'm not seeing any main aspects that haven't been addressed. There might be a major point or two that could be added, but that's allowed. The article has enough beyond facts and dates now too. And the other requirements are all met.

For further improvement, I'll just reiterate (nag) about a thing I talked about before. For breadth, a comparision/mention to the Atlantic hurricane season or the Pacific typhoon season in the same year would be nice. Just for general interest even if no scientific connection is made. Oh, a brief discussion of the data gathering mechanics (i.e. satellites) could be enlightening for the lay reader too.

But really, you've put together a nice piece of work. I'm sure the several thousand people who read this article in a year (really, I've checked) will appreciate it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and congrats to others who contributed to the article too. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This was a real marathon;) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)