Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHurricane Norbert (2008) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Remember

[edit]

it seems that we are doing articles for every single storm now.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by this? I don't understand what you're getting at. That we should do an article for every storm? Because the project page suggests otherwise. It says:


  • Hurricanes should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season.
  • When creating a new article for an active storm when it may or may not be appropriate (i.e. a major hurricane currently threatening land), it is generally best to put a request up in the discussion forum for that hurricane season (e.g. Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season) and discuss it with others.
  • Named hurricanes generally do not have unique names. A storm that has had its name retired may take its name for the main article (e.g. Hurricane Charley, Tropical Storm Allison, Cyclone Tracy); use the prefix appropriate for the tropical cyclone's basin.
  • Less infamous (i.e. non-retired) hurricanes may have a separate page distinguished by year (e.g. Hurricane Bertha (1996)), especially if it must be differentiated (e.g. Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and * Hurricane Bret (1999)). The general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year.
  • If a name has been used only once (or is being used for the first time) and is not warranting an article, it should be created as a redirect to that season (e.g. Tropical Storm Sebastien redirects to 1995 Atlantic hurricane season).
  • Never hesitate to add a redirect when there is no article for a particular hurricane. Redirects help users to find information if it's "hidden" in a season article, and prevent spurious creation of new articles. This is particularly useful for active hurricanes, as users will otherwise often jump at the chance to write a "new" article about the event. Articles should be redirected to disambiguation pages or (only when there is no ambiguity) to the season article that includes the hurricane. Do not redirect to the season article when a disambiguation page exists, as there is then no way for readers to find the disambiguation.
  • This is also helpful for people who wish to provide links to WP for current storms: they can do it once, and the redirect will catch the in-links unless and until a separate page is created. Question: should the redirect go to the season page, or the section thereon for that specific storm?
  • Unnamed (including numbered) hurricanes (used for older tropical cyclones in the Atlantic and Pacific basins, and for all tropical cyclones in the Indian Ocean basin) should be distinguished by location, type, and year. Three naming conventions are acceptable: Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, or Unnamed Hurricane (1975). All unnamed hurricanes should always have a year in the name. Again, create redirects wherever necessary to avoid confusion or duplicate articles.

By reading your talk page, it seems that there has been a lot of controversy over your past pages. Chukonu xbow (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NO NO NO NO NO NO go the link here. NEVER rely on the project page. They are junk. Please use this.13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The project page IS what we follow, not a talk page, unless it is changed on the project page, discussions are not the main source to follow. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These Guidelines.... are, in practice for the Epac:
    • Since 2005, this has basically been de facto policy
   * It is a named storm that doesn't make landfall, but has significant impacts on inhabited land (basically Mexico and the US)
         o This covers things such as impact due to heavy rain or strong waves, and Hawaii landfalls are rare
   * It is retired for any reason. Example Hurricane Adolph (2001). It also dose not need the year. Adolph (2001) should be Adolph
    • The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one
   *
         o Maintaining Wikipedia:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes requires these storms to have good or featured articles.
   * It crosses into the Atlantic or vice versa as a with its circulation or remnants
         o If we are going to have an article on every Atlantic storm, this basically follows from that. Hurricane Cosme (1989) is an example
    • The exclusion of remnants is intended to make it clear that this suggestion does not mean it's necessary to have an article on, say, 2001's Manuel
   *
         o If it is a depression that makes landfall and produces heave rain or winds above 44 mph. They should be an article for TD 2-E (1976)
         o If it is the strongest storm of the season (or makes the top three). Example Hurricane Hernan (2008)
         o Any storm thats impacts the US or Central America (because Central America is rare). Example Tropical Storm Norma (1970).
         o Peak winds are above 150 mph.

An off- season storm or a storm that reaches a unusual latitude or longitude. Example Hurricane Fausto (2002) and Tropical Storm Wene (2000).

Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

[edit]

Any comments? Chukonu xbow (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's writing is very poor and the subject isn't notable.Potapych (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for now at least. Someone with better writing skills should have a sandbox ready, since the storm is forecast to make landfall. Also, the NRL is stating that Norbert has winds of 105mph. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's importance is above "Low", I would change my mind, but I don't see any reason for Stub-class and Start-class low-priority articles.Potapych (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually....Give me until tomorrow night, I'll see what I can do with the article. I think I can find enough info to keep this thing alive....as usual. That does mean that the one for Lowell will have to wait a little bit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but hide links to allow for work. It will almost certainly be warranted based on the track, but not at the moment. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The storm will probably be the most intense landing falling tropical cyclone of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season. With that fact in mind, keep the article as more information will be available as the storm progresses and makes landfall. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Following PROD through to its course means five days will have to pass. At that time Norbert is expected to be inland (if the forecast pans out). Since we will likely need an article then, we should put down the PRODing stick:) I'll try and add some references. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hink has now made the article look a lot better than when i looked in on it earlier.Jason Rees (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some references and polished the article up a bit. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HWRF Model, Shows Norbert becoming a Category Five. I'd say 145-155 out of this, just because the HWRF has had norbert down fairly well recently. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPP its 1) a major hurricane and 2) a storm threatening land. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a downright poor article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BE BOLD. Edit it Julian... stop sitting in your admin t-shirt and do it... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the edit button is present on your screen, as well, Itfc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep now, it's a category four. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category 4 storm is currently projected to hit land at category 1 intensity. Tropical cyclone warnings are underway in the NHC. —Alastor Moody 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nobody had any idea that it would be category four at the time I proposed its deletion, and the article looks better now. Even I say keep now Chukonu xbow (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat. topper?

[edit]

Is there a possibility Norbert could be a category 5 hurricane, considering it's intensity now?

Plasticup 17:20 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1% chance i think. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above was not made by me. [1] Thanks to Juliancolton for pointing that out. Plasticup T/C 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1% chance? It's a cat. 4 now, and Norbert has 2 days until landfall, and it is cat. 4 now. I think it has more of a 10 to 15% chance of being a cat. 5 before weakening prior to landfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2% chance, my bad. Wind probabilities Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC has forecasted that Norbert has already reached its peak. Advisory 20 —Alastor Moody 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking no. But you never know, Kenna was an October storm (As was Trudy 1990 - 155 MPH). I think the highest Norbert will go is about 125 knots. 142.177.232.54 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Running best track has it's peak at 120kts (140mph) it's already weakening. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mabey it is do to eyewall replacement cycle.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar please? And take a look at the satellite images...I see no evidence of a eyewall replacement. The storm is forcast to weaken from here on out. Chukonu xbow (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's unlikely now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Cat 3 ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 11:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Records

[edit]

Could we make a paragraph in the article about records set by Norbert? I know some records Norbert could have set:

  • - Only the 3rd storm ever named Norbert; other uses in 1990 and 1984.
  • - Third strongest October storm, behind Kenna in 2002 and Trudy in 1990.
  • - First hurricane to strike the western side of Baja California during October in 40 years, the last one was Pauline in 1968.

Could this be enough to make a part of the article with "Records" on it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk • contribs)

    • The first record is sort of trivial (I know, it's probably because of me and Marie, although notice how I suggested against adding that sort of stuff). I searched through the advisories and the lowest pressure I found was 948mb. Unless a lower pressure is buried somewhere else, Norbert can't possibly be the third strongest October hurricane as Madeline had 941mb.[2][3]. Based on these, there should be no records section. It should probably be lumped in with impact and aftermath (unless the impact section is huge, of course). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mantalzan and Mexico.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) You meant a south coast land fall because only two hurricanes in history made an east coast landfall in Baja.[reply] 

what about Javier?Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is only one possible record that was set by Norbert, I'm going to look into it now but it might have been the strongest storm to strike the west coast of Baja California. BTW, running best track has its lowest pressure at 945 mbar. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went through each of the years, and found none stronger at west coast landfall than Norbert, 105mph 966mb. Check for yourself if you have any doubts. EPac 1949-2006 seasonal tracks Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about John?Leave Message orYellow Evan home 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although John was stronger, it was an east coast landfall. Hurricane John 2006 Track map. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latest landfall on Baja California also set by Norbert Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert...into Nana?

[edit]

I may well be wrong, so please forgive me, but if Norbert crosses Mexico, does it become an Atlantic storm and therefore would be re-named? If this is accurate, could this go into the article? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its LLC dies... then yes... if not... say hello to Hurricane Norbert-Nana (2008) ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wont be entering any more water after making landfall on the mainland mexican coastline. It's forecast to head far inland, into the central United States. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it did, which it did not, they stopped renaming EPac-Atl Atl-EPac basin crossers starting in 2001.

--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hurricane Norbert

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think retirement is pretty likely so i vote to move to Hurricane Norbert. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 02:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. To do such would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Gustav and Ike no longer included the year. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they are obvious retirement candidates whilst Norbet isnt, - Also do what i have done with Typhoon Fengshen (2008) and wait untill its confirmed by the WMO. Jason Rees (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fengshen is obvious. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day
I Agree but im stil going to wait to move it as if my lucks in they one of the NMHSS (CMA/HKO) will place a press release up on their website tonight at the end of the WMO/ESCAP meeting. Whilst i know the Hurricane Committee is a while away i suggest you wait like me Jason Rees (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No need for the move. EPAC retirements are fickle; we never know which ones will be obvious. For example, Kenna 02 was ($101 million and 4 deaths), but Lane 06 wasn't ($200+ million, 4 deaths). The Atlantic, on the other hand, is straightforward enough for us to assume Gustav and Ike will get the axe. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is the type of EPAC storms the WMO tends to retire. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is also more deadlier than Kenna and I say that damages at 120 million for a gess.
Lets wait for the NHC to confirm what the damages and as me Hink and Jullian have said wait for the WMO/RSMC Miami to confirm the retirement next spring.Jason Rees (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YE, no, you missed the point. EPAC storms are rarely retired, and there isn't much consistency. This page won't be moved. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adolph, Hazel and Kenna were all retired. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day

<-- Yellow Evan, you're missing the point. EPAC retirements are random, so we'll have to wait to see what the WMO does. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why Hazel was retired is completely unknown (unless you're talking about the Atlantic Hurricane Hazel), and Adolph was retired due to political reasons. No offense YE, but Kenna was your only valid example. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we not supposed to speculate in the first place...? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk: List of retired Pacific hurricane names. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing relevant there about Norbert. Is there any more need for discussion? The majority of people agree to keep this article where it is for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2008)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the article in the next few days. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

So far, I have only reviewed the article's lede, and I am not impressed. The entire section seems to be just a rehash of the meteorological history of the storm, with very little attention put to what the storm actually did. It needs a significant revamp for it to be an acceptable summary of the article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:

$:** Reworded, but I don't think it makes sense. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rescue workers had to rescue many Mexicans in low lying areas from their wood and metal homes. — sheet metal, otherwise the sentence says something completely different.
    • In a drive-thru entrance, a happy hour sing was ripped off due to strong winds. — a happy hour sign?
    • Due to the hurricane, one visitor moved his trailer to a hotel as Norbert neared the Baja California Sur.[19] — also makes no sense, and I don't even see why this is relevant.
    • Local residents seeked to shelters by school buses and army trucks as floodwaters entered thier homes. — sought shelter, not seeked to shelters
      • Reworded, and fixed the typo. 15:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The storm also affected cruise ships. While Carnival Pride and Island Princess survived the worst of the hurricane, the Carnival Elation was expected arrive one day earlier than initially anticipated.[21] — all the ship names must be italicized. Also, it's "was expected to arrive".
    • A total of 25 people were killed [23] five of which were in Álamos.[1] — you need a comma before reference 23.
      • Added. 15:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Total damages in Sonora, excluding the town of Álamos was estimated at MXN 800 million ($59.1 million).[26] — total damage; also, the formatting for your damage totals is weird. it's $800 million (year MXN, $59.1 million year USD). You also need to put which the base year of the damage sums for inflation adjustments.
    • At the port of Topolobampo rough seas from the storm sank four ships and damaged 70 others. — comma after Topolobampo
    • Roughly 6,000 people were left homeless in Sinaloa as hundreds of homes were damaged or destroyed by Norbert.[25] — finish talking about Sonora before starting to talk about Sinaloa. Both are state-level political entities, like Baja California and Baja California Sur. Also you need to link to Sinaloa, since you hadn't mentioned it before anywhere.
    • The town of Álamos sustained the most severe damage in the area, with damage in the town exceeding MXN 200 million ($14.7 million).[24] — fix the damage figure and add the base year for inflation calculations.
    • In Alamo, water rushed down the mountains nearby, — '
    • Some scared residents fled to rooftops and higher ground.A total of 95 homes were destroyed — add a space after the period.
      •  Done
    • A total of 95 homes were destroyed and concrete walls were knocked down. Cars and trucks smashed in trees. — how are the links to "cars", "trucks", "walls" and "trees" helpful to the reader here?
    • Furniture and other personal items were on the streets after the storm.[27] — why is "streets" linked here?
    • The fishing industry in Sinaloa sustained severe losses, with 200 shrimp boats being destroyed leaving MXN 8 million ($600,000) in damages.[28] — fix the damage figure and add the base year for inflation calculations.
    • On October 14, Governor Eduardo Bours Castelo of Sonora — link to Eduardo Bours
    • The municipalities of Ahome, El Fuerte, Choix, Guasave and Sinaloa de Leyva were declared disaster areas following the storm, — link to all of these municipalities; links are available at Municipalities of Sinaloa. (Also, Sinaloa de Leyva is a city, not a municipality. Was the city declared a disaster area or was it the municipality?)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    • From the comments above, fails WP:LEAD.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    • No concerns here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    • My main concern is that the article seems to gloss over the impact in Sinaloa. If there were multiple municipalities with federal disaster declarations, one vague sentence describing the impact in the state is not going to cut it for me.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    • All images confirmed to be in the public domain.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    • No concerns here.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The main problem is the lack of Sinaloa impact, so I'm putting the article on hold until that is resolved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any US impact either, which I believe is problematic. These sorts of storms usually cause US impact. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added what little US impact I found. I did find this, but I am unsure if it was related to Norbert. YE Pacific Hurricane16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but NCDC does have stuff for New Mexico that should be included. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given plenty of time for the deficiencies in the article to be corrected, and they have not been fully resolved to my satisfaction, primarily when it comes to fixing blatant typos. As such, I cannot stall this nomination any longer, and I'm failing the article. Please renominate this article when you fix all the points given above. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Norbert (2008). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Norbert_(2008)&oldid=1210964704"