Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Pacific hurricane season

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 User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [1].

2006 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

This is my first FA nomination in a while, but I've been working on this for a while, and I think it's ready to undergo this most holy ritual known as FAC. I've gotten some feedback already, and so I'm ready to address any of your comments. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'm sure these will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first one was fixed easily. The other two are a bit trickier. I tried searching for an archive of those images, for about an hour, and I couldn't find anything. I'll keep searching, but for now those current links will have to suffice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we supposed to find the image at the source link for the second two? If you could leave a few instructions on the image description page, that would be helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOAA doesn't archive old images, although they usually stay on the server for a few days. Something that old isn't going to be available online anymore. Potapych (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support just because the great Hink nominated it. :-) --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, just a quick note, but when reviewers declare votes at FAC, it is expected that they are doing so in relation to the FA criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. <:( --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 16:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is probably one of the best EPac season articles we have (if not the best), so I'll keep my support. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comment Section by section review-

  • Lead
    • Good
  • Seasonal Forecasts
    • Could the Central Pacific be included?
      • Not really. The source (which is the only one of the sort) only says the number of storms that could exist in the basin, nothing beyond that.
    • Expand reasoning for the number of storms forecast
      • Good idea. I did so.
  • May and June
    • Link wind shear near the end of the Aletta description
      • Got it
  • July
    • In the Bud section, give a brief description of what a major hurricane is
      • Clarified
  • August
    • Give a reference for the first sentence (Not that I disagree with it, just that a reference for that claim would be nice) The monthly summary should be a good reference
      • Linked to Hurdat
    • Delink wind shear in the Ioke section since it is linked in the Gilma section
      • K
    • Is there a link for hurricane-proof bunker?
      • Heh, there is one
    • Ileana, what about Socorro?
      • Good point, added hurricane force wind gusts
    • Delink outflow in the Kristy section since it is linked in the Ioke section
      • K
  • September
    • Good
  • October
    • Good
  • Unclassified storm
    • Good
  • November
    • Good
  • Impact
    • Good
  • Season effects
    • (can't review since this is my own work)
      • Err, I reviewed it, and I removed Ileana's landfall, since the TCR said nothing about that. In fact, I removed all of the direct hits, since they were confusing and not supported by TCR. I only left Ioke and Norman, for reasons I clarified in the article.
  • Storm names
    • Note that a request was made for Daniel to be retired
      • Good idea.


Overall a very good article. There is one more little thing that would become redundant if I included it in that list, the rainfall totals. You have it for Aletta and no other storm, why is that? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Aletta doesn't have a rainfall total. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad, 02E has the rainfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I see it. Well, there's no real reason its rainfall total is mentioned in the top section, except that the total stood out to me. Lots of the other storms have it mentioned in the impact section, though. Should I move it, or is it fine? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I think it's fine after giving it another look. Everything looks good to me, Support. P.S. I changed the symbol notes you put in the season effects table into ref group notes, it wont work with references but I think it should be fine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Quick question for you (actually) - maybe should the notes go beneath the table, as a 3rd level sub-section? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had to think about what that meant for a bit haha, that means four "=" right? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I changed it to what I meant. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that looks better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComment: Although the marshalling of facts is impressive, and the presentation excellent, there are significant prose issues to be resolved. I have not yet completed the prose review, and I may raise further points later.

  • Lead:
    • The following sentence is repetitious and a bit clumsy: "The season officially began on May 15 in the NHC portion of the basin and on June 1 the season began in the CPHC portion"
      • I reworded it to clarify the agencies first.
    • These dates seem contradicted by, later: "The season began on May 27..."
      • Good catch. I replaced "the season" with "seasonal activity".
  • Seasonal forecasts: The term "multi-decadal signal" needs to be explained for the benefit of the general reader.
    • I tried using the wording provided by the source, as I can't find anywhere that says what it really is. To simplify it, I just changed "signal" with "cycle", as the terms are fairly exchangeable in this instance. Does "multi-decadal cycle" need explanation, or is it self-explanatory enough (a cycle that lasts more than one decade)?
      • I don't think the meaning you give is self-explanatory, and I think it should be clarified by a parenthetical note. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to "decades-long cycle". Is that simple enough? I really hate parenthesis, and I don't think significant explanation is needed here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May and June
    • "On May 15 the Eastern Pacific hurricane season began, which is the area of the northern Pacific Ocean east of 140°W". The "which is the area" needs to be directly connected to "Eastern Pacific". The sentence needs adjustment along the lines: "On May 15 the hurricane season began in the Eastern Pacific, which is..." etc
      • Good call - fixed.
    • The same "which is" problem applies to the first sentence of the second paragraph.
      • Fixed.
    • Sentences should not end with "however". "However" is a qualifier to a previous statement and should follow immediaely after the statement it qualifies.
      • Moved it to the front of that statement.
    • The following sentence has numerous problems. "No tropical storms developed in June in the basin, although typically two form in the basin during the month; since 1965, there were only four seasons in which a tropical storm did not form in June, the others being 1969, 2004 and 2007." It is too long and meandering at present, even with a semicolon break. An awkward repetition of "in the basin" should also be avoided. The phrase "there were only" should be "there have been only", and I believe it should read "...there have been only three other seasons in which..." etc.
      • I split it into two separate sentences. In the first one, I replaced the awkward wording by clarifying its position against the average June. In the latter, I made the change you suggested; originally I had the wording as "four", not "three", since the source included a subsequent season, but I agree it was a tad confusing, so I changed it.
  • July
    • Another problematic sentence: "After about a month of inactivity, the tropics became active in the basin in July, starting with the formation of the tropical depression that would later become Hurricane Bud, early on July 11 about 850 mi. (1,300 km) south of Cabo San Lucas". Again the sentence winds on, and needs subdivision. Also, "the tropics became active in the basin" is strange phrasing - what "tropics" became active?
      • I thought "tropics" was common, but fair enough - I changed it to "tropical activity", and rewrote that trouble spot into two sentences.
        • It's still not clear what "tropical activity" means, at least to non-weather buffs like me. Also, in your rewording, you have another of those prose repeats I complain of lower down: "The tropical activity in the basin became active" - activity becoming active seems a total redundancy. And since this is a new section, the basin you are talking about should be identified. So, could the sentence be simplified to: "After about a month of no storms, the East Pacific basin became active in July." Wouldn't that cover it? (no repetition, no redundancy, and clear)Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Silly me, indeed saying "tropical activity" is pointless. I changed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following is an example of a problem that occurs regularly in the prose and hampers smooth reading - the close repetition of phrases. Here we have "As the previous two storms were weakening tropical depressions, another tropical depression found..." There are frequent occurences of this kind of repetition within the text.
      • I'm not so sure I know what you mean. Did you find it confusing having "tropical depression" mentioned twice so quickly? Assuming that's what you meant, I changed this wording to clarify "a new tropical depression".
        • It's not that I find such repetitions confusing, it's that they disturb the smooth flow of the prose. As I indicate. it's a bit of a habit in this article. In its very first line the words "hurricane season" occur twice in swift succession, and there are similar cases. What I'm saying is that you would sharpen the prose if you avoided these repetitions by judcious rephrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I see. I removed the first mentionings of the depressions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine, but surely, a full repetition of "Pacific hurricane season" in the first 12 words of the article is avoidable? Especially as the word "season" is repeated yet again in the first sentence. I suggest the first sentence should read: "The 2006 Pacific hurricane season was the most active since the 2000 sesson, which..." This would mean losing the Pacific hurricane season link, but it's not worth screwing up the whole first sentence for this. If you think the link is essential, you could use a pipe and link it via the last word of the sentence, "hurricanes". Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, now I see. I didn't particularly want to remove the link, but when I saw the link was used again, then I didn't see a point to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • August: "More storms in the season developed in August than any other month..." is awkward-sounding, and slightly ungrammatical, too. Grammatically it requires an "in" before "any other month", but that would mean three "ins" in the sentence, so I would advise a bit of rewording.
    • I moved/added "Within the basin" to the front of the sentence, then clarified the rest.
  • "A disorganised cyclone, persistent wind sheer prevented further strengthening..." The first three words seem detached from the rest of the sentence - to what do they refer?
    • Fixed/clarified.

That's as far as I have got at present. I will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. When you're ready, I'm ready any for more comments. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose to "comment" , which seems reasonable in the circumstances (don't keep opposes alive any longer than you have to). I will get back with more constructive comments as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming my prose review after 19 days, with apologies for the delay. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • September
      • Check comma usage. As a rule I think that sentences that begin, for example, "After September 18" do not need a comma after the date. There is no natural pause there, and the comma spoils the reading flow. There are several examples of this.
      • The phrase "never having attained tropical storm status" needs an "it" in front, to be gramatical.
      • Suggest lose comma after "Central Pacific"
    • October
      • "quickly" is redundant in the first line - (you have "within 24 hours")
      • "almost just as quickly" - "just" is redundant
      • "24 hour" --> "24-hour"
      • "...and Paul steadily weakened to tropical storm status". Suggest a comma after "environment", which preceded this phrase, then: which steadily weakened it to tropcal storm status".
      • In last para: "the previous storm" - why not name it?
    • Unclassified storm
      • The sentence "It drifted over unusually warm water, as much as 2°C above normal" is not quite grammatical. Suggest insert "with temperatures" after "warm water" . And "as much as" is not very encyclopedic - "up to" would be better.
      • Use of "while" in: "...while the storm was located..." etc. Location is unrelated to the wind speed which was the subject of the earlier clause, so "while" is inappropriate, Slight rewording necessary.
      • What's "cloud-free eye"?
      • Link "eyewall"
    • November
      • "based using" isn't right. "Based on"
    • Impact
      • It's my ignorance, but what's the difference between rainfall and precipitation?
      • The format you use to convert Mexican dollars to USD is a bit clumsy and hard to figure out. You have: "£663 million (2006MXN, $60.8 million 2006USD). I would suggest "$MXN663 million ($60.8 million 2006USD)". The year need only be mentioned once. The other conversion formats need similar simplification.
      • "Hurricane Lane moved ashore..." a date would be helpful here
      • Word missing: "...two of which were from rough seas..."
      • Link "wildfire"
      • beneficial in some areas but damaging in other areas" - it's the old repetition thing. Should be "but damaging in others".
      • "washout" nedds a lnk
      • "all of which being" --> "all of which were"
      • Insert "first" before "full-scale", to get the meaning
      • "many of which with..." - "of which" is redundant
      • To avoid multiple repetion of "damage" I suggest you say: "Destruction on the island was..." etc
    • Season effects table
      • It says: "Deaths in parentheses are additional..." It should say "Death figures in parentheses are additional..." But where are these parentheses?
      • Deaths total 15 in the table, but the figure given in the text is 14.
  • These may seem a lot of points, but most are fairly minor and can be dealt with easily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Dead link here Sociedad y gobierno unidos ante los daños del Huracán Lane

Otherwise links check out, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed the link. It wasn't really dead, as that link worked for me when coming from the previous page. But I got a permanent link. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox Comments from Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

The second best EPAC season article (behind 2003)
The Season effects and Impact should be merged into Season impact.
We need more FA EPAC season articles
Help explode with the amount of Featured Topic (see my user page) Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox}}
  • Comments
  • Ioke passed near Johnston Atoll and later near Wake Island, where it caused heavy damage but no deaths. - The second "near" is unneeded.
  • After no storms formed in June, the season became active in July when five named storms developed, including Hurricane Daniel which was the second strongest storm of the season. - "After no storms formed in June" reads oddly. Could you reword that?
  • On May 31, Aletta dissipated about 200 mi (320 km) west-northwest of where it first formed. - "First" is redundant.
  • It tracked eastward, bringing heavy rainfall to the coastline, with a report of about 11 inches (280 mm) falling in Acapulco. - Avoid using "with" followed by an "-ing".
  • It moved westward, gradually intensifying under favorable conditions, and being named Daniel by the NHC after reaching tropical storm status. - It's already mentioned that the storm was named "Daniel" in the previous sentence.
  • For a brief period of time, Daniel was forecast to move through the Hawaiian Islands as a tropical storm - "For a brief period of time" → "Briefly".
  • With low amounts of wind shear and a northwest track through warm waters and a moist environment - Somewhat of a run-on.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • During the season, tropical cyclones caused 15 fatalities and $355 million in damage (2006 USD). - This needs a source.
    • The totals were merely a summation of the stats from the rest of the impact section. No reliable source (or any source I've found) provides the season damage/death total. Should I cite that sentence with all of the refs that make it? At the very least, I put the individual totals in parenthesis.
      • What about a note which explains that, as in 2007 Atlantic hurricane season? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
        • I'm not sure what you mean. 2007 AHS does not have any sort of note. I see one word in 2007 AHS that might improve clarity - "collectively" - which I added to this article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The cumulative damage figures were obtained by summing the damage figures on the individual Tropical Cyclone Reports referenced throughout the article, with the exception of Hurricane Dean. Dean's damage figures were obtained by adding the per-country totals referenced in the Impact section of this article." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh! I thought you meant the total in the impact section. Yea, I added something like that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the six storms that did not strike the country, the first was Tropical Storm Aletta, the first storm of the season - This is confusing, as more than six storms during the season didn't strike Mexico.
    • Changed to Of the six storms that affected Mexico but did not strike the country
  • The Impact section is basically a timeline in prose form. Nearly every sentence begins with "In [month],...".
    • Well, it's more along the line of what the impact section does in the similarly featured 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. What don't you like with it?
      • IMO, not every sentence needs to say what month the storm was in. The impact section in 2003 Atlantic hurricane season reads more easily, as it only lists the few significant storms, and a few sentences about their respective effects. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I removed a few dates, but I left some that I felt improved clarity. I didn't really worry about previous FA's with regards to this season's impact section, due to it being the first Pacific one and one of only a handful including the Atlantic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Lane impacted 4,320 houses, and a total of 19,200 mi (30,000 km) of roads and highways were damaged to some degree. - What does "impacted" mean? Does that mean they were damaged? Destroyed?
    • The source (which is in Spanish) isn't clear. It just says 4,320 houses were affected.
      • Ok, that's fine. Could you change "impacted" to "affected"? "Impacted" implies that there was some damage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think they're perfectly interchangeable, but I'll just make the change since I don't really mind. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • locally severe flooding in New Mexico,[48] - The source doesn't say that.
    • I remember that information, but I forget where I got it from, so I changed it to another piece of information.
  • In contrast to John, later the remnants of Hurricane Lane produced light rainfall in Texas, causing little effects. - The source given doesn't say the rainfall was light. Also, should it be "few effects"?
    • I simplified it to "The remnants of Hurricane Lane also produced rainfall in Texas."
  • The landmass experienced hurricane force winds which resulted in some downed trees. - "Some" is vague.
    • I rewrote the sentence.
  • In the western Pacific Ocean after being re-classified as a typhoon, Ioke passed very near Wake Island, forcing the full-scale evacuation of the island since a typhoon in 1967. - No need for "very" here.
    • Agreed.
  • Later, the storm passed near the Japanese island of Minami Torishima, which was also fully evacuated. - This is a cliffhanger. Was the island affected?
    • I had searched before and not found anything, although a search tonight yielded some useful information.
  • The remnants of Ioke later brought hurricane force wind gusts and a powerful storm surge to southwestern Alaska. - The sources don't say the surge was "powerful". Also, one of the sources doesn't mention Ioke at all.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments. For the Ioke one, I just removed the info from the other source. At first, I felt the information in the first one was important, and backed up being caused by Ioke, since the latter source confirmed Ioke was the predominant weather pattern in the area. However, it was easiest limiting it to the source explicitly mentioning Ioke. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (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/2006_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1126592912"