Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Rosa (2018)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHurricane Rosa (2018) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starHurricane Rosa (2018) is part of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2019Good article nomineeListed
June 5, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 24, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
June 10, 2021Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Infobox image

[edit]

Should we use [1] or [2] for Rosa's image? There is a dispute going on about which one should be in the infobox. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the colored IR image (2) over the B/W overnight visible image. (1). There seems to be a stigma against IR imagery, which results in these kinds of things happening. In this case however it is better to use a colored image, even if it is an IR image. Cooper 22:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I normally prefer a colored, visible satellite image, it seems that for this storm, we don't have a picture with all the best aspects. In this case, I think that the current visible, nighttime image would be best, since it is a detailed image that does a great job of depicting the storm at peak intensity. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. The colored IR looks much more natural than the nighttime image. There isn't anything wrong with having an IR image on an article. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've been using nighttime or black and white images for a while, especially on the articles for the older storms. The nighttime image looks more natural to me (just a black and white version of what I would expect if the storm was viewed under moonlight), and the details of the storm are much more defined and visible than they are in the IR image. Visible imagery is normally more natural in appearance than IR and radar images. For me, the color is the only downside, but the quality and details in the nighttime image are still preferable when compared to the IR image. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we use the visual, I would prefer the black and white as it looks more natural than a colored one. It peaked at nighttime and should be black and white as such. A colored visual gives the impression it peaked during the day which is not true. FigfiresSend me a message! 00:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Rosa (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6. The wave moved over the tropical Atlantic during the next couple of weeks, before entering the Pacific Ocean and developing into a broad area of low pressure on September 22." considering how little this has to do with the storm itself, why is it in the lead? I'd start off by mentioning when the NHC first started monitoring it personally. Also, why are major geographical locations linked like Africa and the Pacific Ocean? YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "On September 27, Rosa began a period of rapid intensification, ultimately peaking as a Category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 936 mbar (27.64 inHg) on the next day." (I will fix the next sentence once I get to it) NoahTalk 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the next day, Rosa had weakened into a Category 2 hurricane due to ongoing structural changes and less favorable conditions. Later on September 29, Rosa re-intensified slightly. On September 30, Rosa resumed weakening, falling to Category 1 status as its core structure eroded. Early on October 1, Rosa weakened into a tropical storm." why mention so many categorical changes? YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the C1 mention and fixed the first part of the sentence (in relation to change I made for above issue). NoahTalk 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On September 19, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) issued their first forecast, anticipating that an area of low pressure would form a few hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec over the weekend." First forecast ever? Also, why isn't the NHC linked? Please make sure you link everything once in the entire article or do it on first instance in both the lead and the body. But be consistent. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "On September 19, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring the wave for tropical development..." NoahTalk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after, the NHC stated that Rosa's eye had warmed to 16 °C (61 °F)" just as an FYI, I'd avoid mentioning eye temperature in articles, at least without content, since it can be misleading. Satellites aren't great compared to Recon at estimating the warmest part of the eye, though they've gotten better over the years. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the specific temp. to considerably. NoahTalk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the storm's motion change after weakening to a TS?
    Sorry about that. After the sentence about Rosa weakening to TS, I added "Shortly after, Rosa began travelling towards the northeast." NoahTalk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The National Weather Service issued a flash flood warning for the Phoenix area, as Rosa drenched the city with up to 2 inches of rainfall reported on October 2, making it one of the wettest days in the city's history. Firefighters also rescued several people from their flooded vehicles.[30]" no unit conversion, "one of" is IIRC one of MOS:WTW, and your probably better off reversing the order of the sentence to mentioing the rain resulted in flash flood warnings and rescues. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be fixed. NoahTalk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On October 3, a 26-year-old French woman was killed after crossing the collapsed section of US 89, north of Cameron. Once the woman crossed the collapsed portion of the highway, she exited her vehicle to inspect for damages. She was then struck and killed by a Toyota pickup that was travelling north." this reads like it was copied directly from a news article. Just mention how she died and where in 1 sentence. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    changed. NoahTalk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other then areas that were already mentioned, I found one incident in Nevada. I checked the storm event reports for all states in the vicinity. Most storm event reports were for the other system that was in area or after the aforementioned system absorbed Rosa. I think that the US impact section is as complete as it will get. NoahTalk 16:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly my main impression is that it reminds me a lot of my older articles, like the ones around 2010. Not enough care was taken place to make sure there were no goofs, with a heavy reliance of content not fully done by the nominator. But considering you've been in WPTC for like 6 months now, it could be worse, andmost oof the problems here can be easily fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]