Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Alex (2016)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2019 [1].

Hurricane Alex (2016)[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex in January 2016 was one of the more anomalous hurricanes on record within the Atlantic basin. Its development marked the third-known occurrence of a hurricane-force tropical cyclone in January, with records extending back to 1851. The article is a bit more technical than would normally be expected, but there are hopefully enough explanations for lay readers to understand. The most notable aspects of this system is the meteorology of it, so that's where the focus lies. It did have some impact to people in Bermuda and the Azores; however, it was relatively minor.

I've gone ahead and looked for any additional information that may have arose in the years since I initially wrote the article and added the little I found. As such, this the article is as comprehensive as can be. It's been a few years since my last nomination, so apologies if I'm a bit rusty. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Source review
  • The sources and references are all high quality, independent, and reliable. I appreciate you having archived many of the sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The first tropical cyclone of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, Alex originated as an extratropical cyclone near the Bahamas on January 7, 2016. - this might be confusing to readers, as to what extratropical, subtropical, and tropical are, especially if they are in the same sentence. I suggest making it more basic, such as - "Hurricane Alex originated as an extratropical cyclone near the Bahamas." Save the "first tropical cyclone" bit for when you say "As it turned north-northeast, Alex transitioned into a full-fledged tropical cyclone on January 14 and became a hurricane."
  • On January 12, it developed into a subtropical cyclone well south of the Azores, becoming the first tropical or subtropical system during January in the North Atlantic since an unnamed storm in 1978. - what about Zeta 05/06?
  • After weakening slightly, Alex made landfall on Terceira Island as a tropical storm the next day. - since the previous sentence didn't mention a date, I think you should write out "January 15" here instead of "the next day"
  • Concurrently, Alex began transitioning back into an extratropical cyclone; it completed this cycle hours after moving away from the Azores. - I feel like these thoughts could be combined
  • You should mention Bermuda impacts in the lead, so as to be thorough.
Background
  • Activity in January is considered extremely rare - I don't think you need the "considered", since then I would ask, who considers it?
  • When Alex made landfall on Terceira as a strong tropical storm this marked only the second time that an Atlantic tropical cyclone has made landfall in January, with the other being Hurricane Alice of 1955 which made landfall on Saint Martin and Saba. - add a comma after storm, and I suggest the last part be split as an independent sentence, or add a semicolon
  • In addition to forming well outside of hurricane season, Alex developed unusually far north and east, becoming only the second hurricane to form north of 30°N and east of 30°W. - second hurricane on record?
Met history
  • The significant deepening was accompanied by a warm-core seclusion at the upper-levels and the transition to a more symmetric structure. - the "was accompanied" is uncertain to me. Did they happen in tandem, or the result of? Also, the "and the transition to a more symmetric structure" seems important, but it might be too jargon-y for the layman to appreciate what happened.
  • You should probably mention somewhere that the National Hurricane Center classified the storm. That's not in the text anywhere. I suggest somewhere around "Upon doing so, the system received the name Alex"
  • "Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause, convection was deemed deep enough for classification." - good met details, but could you rewrite it to make it simpler for the layman? The "seasonally low level of the tropopause" threw me for a second. I suggest reordering.
    • Added a note clarifying why the tropopause is more shallow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trough that previously enabled the sharp southward turn later steered Alex to the east-northeast and later north-northeast. - avoid two "later"s in the same sentence
  • As it moved away from the upper-level low it was previously situated under, Alex acquired a deeper warm core and upper-level outflow became established, indicating the system was becoming more tropical. - suggest splitting into two sentences
  • Becoming increasingly tilted with height due to shear - I think I know what that means, but I worry the user might. I suggest using "asymmetrical" instead of "tilted", since you mentioned earlier the symmetrical structure.
  • I appreciate that you have the structural evolution of Alex. I suggest you add another image for January 15th, after the storm weakened and when it struck the Azores. This way, we have satellite imagery of the historic January landfall. Your call though.
    • The gallery is meant more for the evolution from extratropical to tropical. Adding more would just make it a gallery of its life and would necessitate several more images. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations and impact
  • Gusts to 60 mph (97 km/h) disrupted air travel, downed trees, and left sporadic power outages, while waves as high as 20 ft (6 m) necessitated small craft advisories for the islands. - I suggest splitting, but it works fine as it is.
  • This last comment is rather nitpicky, but you have a pic of the waves in the Azores, without any textual mention. Could you add anything about surf/waves in the Azores?
    • The waves are mentioned in the sentence you pointed out in the above comment :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, it is a very good article. My comments are relatively minor, and hopefully aren't too arduous to complete. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I've addressed all the above concerns and responded to some directly. Please look over the changes to make sure they're sufficient. Thank you for the review! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the quick replies! I'm happy to support now. Great work on this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image license and use seems OK to me. ALT text also looks fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • Support on prose. The article looked really good on my read through. NoahTalk 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JC[edit]

  • I'm not sure the opening line adequately highlights the distinction between being in January and forming in January.
    • Removed the mention of 1938 here. Clarifying the distinction in the lead is a bit much and best left to Background where its sufficiently explained. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight weakening took place thereafter, and the system eventually turned → "After weakening slightly, the system eventually turned..." ?
  • "full-fledged" seems jarringly colloquial when bounded by otherwise very technical prose.
  • I've always known "concurrent" to connote at least a partial spatial component, whereas "simultaneous" could be purely temporal. Just me?
  • the period in which tropical cyclones are most likely to develop across the basin. – It's hard to say which "period" has the greatest probability of tropical cyclogenesis without defining that period. Is there another way to frame this explanation?
    • It would likely be way too clunky and have mixed messages. The current definition by the NHC is that the highest likelihood of cyclogenesis is within that period even if the maxima is concentrated in late summer. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it purely coincidence that Alex and Pali developed nearly at the same time, or have any sources discussed possible meteorological links?
    • Only connection would be the ongoing El Niño but that's pure speculation and violates WP:OR. Pure coincidence otherwise. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may still be some nuggets to glean from the TCR. The shortwave that gave the pre-Alex frontal low a shot in the arm is one example. Anomalously warm SSTs after the 10th is another.
  • and thermal symmetry extended from the upper-levels to the surface through the cyclone. - This should probably be removed unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of explaining what any of that means.
  • convection was deemed deep enough for classification - Maybe change "deep" to "intense" to avoid confusion with "deep" in the synoptic sense?
  • Despite moving over 72 °F (22 °C) waters, Alex continued to deepen - You need to indicate why deepening is not expected over 72-degree water.
  • The transition was enabled by colder-than-average upper-tropospheric temperatures - The source (disco #4) says upper-level temps were "significantly colder than the tropical mean", which I don't believe is the same as being anomalously cold for that location. Thoughts?
  • Becoming increasingly asymmetrical with height due to shear - Maybe just "tilted" would be easier on the eyes?
  • Ferry services to and from Cavello Bay, Dockyard, Belmont, Hodsdon’s Ferry, and Lower Ferry were suspended - The hyper-local place names don't do much to help our understanding of the storm's impact. I'd eliminate them and just say broadly that ferries were out of service.
  • ...only known hurricane to track... - I'd move this (and maybe the Gordon tidbit) to background.

Still a little rough around the edges and perhaps overly technical in spots, but I suppose that's just the nature of this sort of article – the vast majority of readers are already going to be weather enthusiasts who already know most of the jargon. No-doubt the most comprehensive account of the storm available anywhere, so I'll be happy to support after some minor changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I noticed: you specify the precursor system affected Bermuda on January 8, but then include a three-day rainfall total. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the power outages in Bermuda, if you're interested. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed everything. Thank you for the review! If there's anything left or adjustments to new material, please let me know. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after my comments were satisfactorily addressed. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Just a note that this has been on the Urgents list for a while and really needs a bit more substantive review to push it over the line. Maybe you can ping some editors active in the topic area? --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees, Titoxd, and Hylian Auree: if any of you have time to give the article a look, it would be greatly appreciated! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yessiree. Will do a full-criteria review, including spot-checks, asap! Auree ★★ 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hylian Auree: just a check in since it's been a week. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Been more swamped than expected, sorry about that. Today is the day though! Auree ★★ 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hylian Auree[edit]

Reading through it now and making changes to the prose as I go. Following Julian's comment above, the writing in parts of the MH, while understandably so given Alex's complex cyclogenesis, is quite technical. I had difficulties understanding the narrative at times, so I imagine those who are less-versed in severe weather might not fare well either. Auree ★★ 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The next day, an anomalous blocking pattern prevented the disturbance from continuing along a seasonal northeasterly track." – "Anomalous blocking pattern" is quite jargony, and "seasonal" has an unclear meaning. Since tropical disturbances are exceedingly rare (unseasonal) during this time, can we really consider a northeasterly track to be "seasonal"? May I suggest "The next day, an unseasonable air pattern blocked the disturbance from continuing along its northeasterly path." I chose "air" because it's simplest in its conveyance, but alternatives are welcome (maybe sth with "steering" or "current").
  • "Instead, the storm turned east-southeast into a region slightly more favorable for subtropical development." – This is the first time we mention subtropical development (tropical cyclogenesis is mentioned earlier). Can we have some sort of explanation here why the NHC was calling for this subtropical, instead of the former tropical, development, or something to link the two ideas?
    • Outlook stated tropical or subtropical; added subtropical to the earlier mention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concurrently, a warm-core seclusion at the upper-levels marked the transition to a more symmetric structure," – Can you simplify this?
  • "Slight weakening took place on January 11." – This is a terse, somewhat abrupt ending to the paragraph, and disconnectedly contrasting with the preceding information about warmer (more favorable) waters.
  • "frontal boundaries separated from the core of the cyclone;" – "separated" implies the boundaries existed prior, but this is the first time we encounter this (somewhat jargony) term.
    • There's no earlier mention of the fronts that I can find to support adding it earlier. It's largely implied that the system had frontal boundaries by being an extratropical cyclone, but without supporting refs I can't make an explicit mention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alongside the system being co-located with an upper-level low, indicated its transition into a subtropical cyclone by 18:00 UTC" – Why is being co-located with an upper-level low an indication for subtropical formation, and why is it singled out? Can we maybe expound here and include this into the list of factors in the previous sentence?
  • "Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause,[nb 1] convection was deemed intense enough for classification." This reads as an afterthought that is needlessly divergent in its technicality, and can also be included more simply in the list of factors/structural changes (perhaps as "intense albeit shallow convection").
    • Used the suggested phrase and added it to the the list of changes as suggested. Note explaining why shallow is specified was kept at the end of the sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The trough that previously enabled the sharp southward turn later steered Alex to the east-northeast and eventually north-northeast." – Current phrasing puts (presumably unwanted) emphasis on the trough over the change in movement, and this is the first time we read that its previous turn was a sharp one.
    • I'm unsure of what you mean by the unwanted emphasis. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meant that the trough was the subject of the sentence rather than Alex - changed this myself. Auree ★★ 05:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eye feature soon appeared within a complex of several banding features, marking intensification.[22] The 20 mi (25 km) wide feature cleared out early on January 14 and was surrounded by a ring of −75 °F (−60 °C) cloud tops." – Technically fine, but for the sake of layman comprehension, can we somehow link the eye feature to its location at the core/center of the system, especially in the context of "cleared out"?
  • I'll go ahead and add this myself. Auree ★★ 14:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Becoming increasingly tilted due to shear" – Can we reword this to better explain what "tilted" means here? How does shear cause such a tilt?
    • Simplifying to "disorganized" serves the same purpose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, the overall structure became more "comma shaped" as a consequence of frontal systems" – What frontal systems, and why does this result in a comma shape?
    • Added "frontal boundaries" to the preceding sentence which mentioned the changes associated with the extratropical transition. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hurricane indirectly led to one death—the person suffered a heart attack unrelated to the storm—when an emergency helicopter was unable to take off due to turbulent conditions." – How about "One person suffering a heart attack died as an indirect result of Alex when turbulent conditions hindered the emergency helicopter from taking off in time"?

That's it for now. Will do a source review and spot-check next. Auree ★★ 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten, just been distracted/busy. Should be able to get to it tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this and dealing with my slow response Hylian Auree! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks[edit]

Note: I can read Portuguese.

  • Refs 3, 5 & 6: support their statements without close paraphrasing.
  • Ref 9 a, b & c, p & q: all check out.
  • Refs 27 & 28 a): support the statement without synthesis.
  • Ref 28 b): Slightly picky, but the source does not quite make the distinct link between convective decay and the start of extratropical transition like the article does; they just forecast the transition to succeed the weakening.
  • Ref 30: checks out
  • Ref 31: links to a database site, so I can't retrieve the original source (!)
    • Screenshot through imgur for verification purposes. Not sure how to properly cite a page that doesn't create a stable url. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks – the info checks out. I used to know how to do that, but I admit it's been a while since I've dabbled in sources ^^; Auree ★★ 16:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 13, 32 & 33: support all but could be better placed around their respective statements.
  • Ref 37 (PT): checks out
  • Ref 42 (PT): source material is slightly mistranslated. Ponta Delgada reported six fallen trees, one destroyed roof, one flooded street, six landslides, and damage to six buildings. Nowhere does it state that the damage was caused by flooding.
  • Refs 43 & 44 (PT): both check out.

Spot-checks suggest the article is factually accurate without close paraphrasing or copyvio. Auree ★★ 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Sources are reliable, of high quality, and are now formatted for consistency and to the standards of FA. Auree ★★ 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "[9] All these factors indicated its transition into a subtropical cyclone by 18:00 UTC on January 12, receiving the name Alex from the National Hurricane Center.[9] Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause,[nb 2] convection was deemed intense enough for classification.[21]" It seems to me that the position of these two sentences might perhaps be swapped for clarity. Plus the grammar of the first is a wee bit off; the factors didn't receive anything. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be remedied now by the earlier suggestion by Auree. Adjusted the grammar as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operationally, Alex was not classified as a subtropical storm until late on January 13" Huh? I thought it was classified as such the day before.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Operational assessments refer to the in-situ advisories whereas the earlier mentioned classification is from the post-storm analysis. Mention of this difference isn't terribly important so I went ahead and removed it to avoid confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ": frontal boundaries separated from the core of the cyclone;[9] its core became symmetric;[15] it became co-located with an upper-level low;[nb 1] and convection developed atop the circulation.[9]" OK this is nitpicky but I'm 95% sure that we are supposed to use commas to separate items in a list unless one of those items itself contains a comma. In that case a semicolon is used. None of those independent clauses in that list contains a comma, so semicolons are not recommended. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other atmospheric factors, as shown in the case of Alex, are the dominant factor" First, "other factors are the dominant factor" sounds a bit odd. Second, please forgive my obtuseness, but could you please list the specific features you had in mind? I mean... you can list them on this page, but... I'm not sure the article really made this point clearly enough either. Perhaps it did, but I am not sure. So I am asking. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swapped the second "factor" for a synonym. The factors it's referring to are the upper-level outflow, instability, and wind shear (the latter of which was added after your comments) which are mentioned in the third paragraph of the meteorological history. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex develops a well-defined eye and core structure..." So in the text we have "An eye feature soon appeared at the center of the cyclone's spiral bands, marking intensification.[22]" But the source says Alex had been trying to develop an eye. When did it become well-defined? Need another source? Or am I wrong? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex develops a well-defined eye and core structure..." So in the text we have "allowing the cyclone to acquire a deeper warm core with upper-level outflow ... Alex continued to deepen" So what's the definition of a well-defined core.. they're deep? they have upper-level outflow? ... and which source says when that happened exactly? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Core structure refers to convective organization in this context. Specific refs: 4, 9, 23 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Lingzhi2! I believe I've addressed everything. If there's anything else that needs adjusting please let me know. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree[edit]

Support in full on criteria 1, 2 and 4. All but my most nitpicky concerns have been sufficiently addressed, so I will be happy to see this innovative and well-research account on such a climatologically unusual system receive its star. Thanks for your diligence, CB <3 Auree ★★ 05:44, 10 October 2019 (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_Alex_(2016)/archive1&oldid=920957708"