Hurricane 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
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.
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).
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
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
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 Madeline03:49, 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. —
AlastorMoody00:02, 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?
Is there a possibility Norbert could be a category 5 hurricane, considering it's intensity now?
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
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
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
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 Madeline17:43, 11 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
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?
doktorbwordsdeeds21:14, 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.
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 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
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.
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.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Late in September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Mexico. On October 3, the wave developed into a tropical depression and then into Tropical Storm Norbert the next day. — Why is this in the lede? Why does it matter? (You are also missing a space after the period of this sentence, and you need to link to weather terms to keep the article from being too technical, but I still think you need to get rid of this sentence anyways.)
Norbert ultimately became a hurricane on October 7 and rapidly intensified to a Category 2 hurricane and it became a major hurricane on October 8. — You could just said that it rapidly intensified into a major hurricane the day after it formed, instead of going through a laundry list of classification changes.
Removed the hurricane and Cat 2 part
It continued to strengthen into a Category 4 hurricane before weakening back to a Category 3 by the morning of October 9, and weakened into a Category 1 hurricane that afternoon, but restrengthened into a Category 2 the next day, and became a minimal major hurricane midday on October 11, and it made landfall in Baja California Sur as a Category 2 later that day. — huge run-on sentence, plus most of this information is not needed anyways.
Norbert then hit the mainland of Mexico as a Category 1 hurricane. — too imprecise. The "mainland of Mexico" could be anywhere from Sonora to the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
The final advisory on Norbert was issued on the morning of October 12. — Again, why does a person who is not a weather geek care about the final advisory? Why can't you keep it simple and say that it dissipated?
Norbert claimed 25 lives with three people missing and caused $716.4 million in damages throughout Mexico, — $716 million USD or MXN? Is that in present-year dollars or base year dollars?
One more thing here: You say that Norbert caused the worst damage in Baja California and Álamos, Sonora. — linking to
Baja California implies that it did most of its damage to the northern half of the peninsula. Link to the article on the peninsula, or just say Baja California Sur.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)reply
which at that time was mentioned on the Tropical Weather Outlook.[2] — the link given for Tropical Weather Outlook does not mention anything about it, so you need to find something different.
Can't find a link so I explained what it is, but it probably need a c/e.
and satellite intensity estimates using the Dvorak technique suggested tropical storm force winds; — suggested what about the tropical storm force winds? That they went out to eat chicken? You also need a hyphen between storm and force.
On October 7, it reached Category 2 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale — you are starting a paragraph with a pronoun, which makes it unclear what antecedent you are using (even if it is fairly obvious from context). Rephrase.
Switched "it" to "hurricane Norbert"
while Norbert developed well defined and closed eyewall via Microwave imagery.[9] — a well-defined and closed eyewall as seen in microwave imagery.
You didn't add the hyphen and now it says micorwave imagery. — microwave
Overnight on October 8, an eye appeared on infrared satellite, indicating that Norbert was intensifying and was upgraded to a major hurricane respectively.[10] — the eye was upgraded to a major hurricane? What? (Split the sentences, you are talking about two different things here.)
Continuing to rapidly strengthen over warm sea surface temperatures, it reached Category 4 status late on October 8, after intensifying 45 mph (75 km/h) over the previous 24 hours. — again, unclear antecedent; it = eye or it = Norbert? (It should be obvious which way to fix this.)
The storm peak intensity was 135 mph (215 km/h) and a peak pressure of 945 mbar (hPa; 27.91 inHg) while located 350 mi (560 km) south of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. — the storm's peak intensity; link units, as they are not common; link Cabo San Lucas
The peak intensity of Norbert is uncertain as aircraft observations were lower the classifications via Dvorak Technique.[1] — than the classifications (and you should probably use a more meaningful word, like "estimates"); also, what does "lower" mean in this context? Lower wind speeds (weaker storm) or lower central pressure (stronger storm)? You need to clarify this.
However, the cloud patter became less impressive early on October 9, and was thus downgraded into a Categor y3 hurricane, with winds of 125 mph (205 km/h).[11] — cloud pattern; Category 3, not Categor y3; and why did the storm start to weaken anyways? Colder SSTs? Shear?
At that time, it was downgraded into a weak Category 1 hurricane by October 9.[1] — you have two temporal clauses in the sentence ("at the time", "by October 9"), which makes the sentence sound weird. Fix please.
Norbert began to re-intensify as the cycle completed. — spell out eyewall replacement cycle here, as it has been a while since you mentioned what "cycle" stands for in this instance.
The cyclone turned to the north-northeast due to a mid to upper level trough that was moving over the Southwest United States. — don't link to compass directions
A hurricane warning was issued on October 10 for parts of central Baja California from Puerto San Andresito southward to Agua Blanca, and they extended around the peninsula from La Paz to Loreto. — link to
tropical cyclone watches and warnings; see if there are suitable links to Puerto San Andresito, and Agua Blanca; definitely link La Paz and Loreto.
Surgery had been performed on the link and is successful.
YEPacificHurricane
The warnings also went on the mainland west coast from Topolobampo to Guaymas. — link to both Topolobampo and Guaymas; I don't like "went on", it sounds too informal. Try "warnings were also put in place for the west coast of Sonora from Topolobampo to Guaymas."
and extended around the Baja peninsula to La Paz, and these same areas were also under tropical storm warnings as well. — use a semicolon after La Paz, and remove the "and" after the semicolon.
On October 10, officials in Baja California declared the municipalities of Loreto, Comondú y La Paz disaster areas in anticipation of severe damage from the hurricane.[13] — link to the individual municipalities (see
Municipalities of Baja California Sur for links). Also, why do you have a random Spanish conjunction there? It's and, not "y".
In Ciudad Obregon, farmers rushed to fertilize the fields prior to the passage of Norbert[14] — link to
Ciudad Obregón, Sonora; why do you have a random tidbit about Sonora in a paragraph almost completely devoted to Baja California Sur? What else happened in Sonora?
officials estimated that damages from the hurricane was MXN 8.8 billion 2008 MXN ($650 million USD).[13] — you have MXN twice there. Remove the first instance and link the second one instead.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
According to tourism officials, hotel reservations were down 40% in Los Cobos and Loreto Roofs were ripped off buildings and many trees were damaged. — Los Cabos
On the islands of Margarita and Magdalena, 40% of homes received some damage, mostly roof damage. — it's "Santa Margarita", not "Margarita"; links to
Isla Magdalena (Baja California Sur) and
Isla Santa Margarita would be appreciated here.
The La Paz airport closed prior to the arrival of the system, — we have an article on the La Paz airport (
Manuel Márquez de León International Airport); why are you linking to the city instead? Change it.
but the Los Cobos airport remained open throughout the passage of the tropical cyclone.[18] — there is no such thing as Los Cobos, it's Los Cabos, and we also have an article on the
Los Cabos International Airport itself.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?)
References 14—20: AP, AFP and Reuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Hurricane_Norbert_(2008)/GA2&action=editters should be given with the |agency= parameter in {{cite news}}.
Reference 27: The reference is unformatted (check the title parameter) , and I am not sure it meets
WP:RS.
Added a title and I am unsure about wheater it is reliable or not myself. If this article went to the
WP:FAC (it probably wont), i'd probably remove it.
YEPacificHurricane
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.
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
External links modified
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.
Hurricane 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
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.
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).
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
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
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 Madeline03:49, 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. —
AlastorMoody00:02, 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?
Is there a possibility Norbert could be a category 5 hurricane, considering it's intensity now?
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
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
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
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 Madeline17:43, 11 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
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?
doktorbwordsdeeds21:14, 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.
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 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
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.
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.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Late in September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Mexico. On October 3, the wave developed into a tropical depression and then into Tropical Storm Norbert the next day. — Why is this in the lede? Why does it matter? (You are also missing a space after the period of this sentence, and you need to link to weather terms to keep the article from being too technical, but I still think you need to get rid of this sentence anyways.)
Norbert ultimately became a hurricane on October 7 and rapidly intensified to a Category 2 hurricane and it became a major hurricane on October 8. — You could just said that it rapidly intensified into a major hurricane the day after it formed, instead of going through a laundry list of classification changes.
Removed the hurricane and Cat 2 part
It continued to strengthen into a Category 4 hurricane before weakening back to a Category 3 by the morning of October 9, and weakened into a Category 1 hurricane that afternoon, but restrengthened into a Category 2 the next day, and became a minimal major hurricane midday on October 11, and it made landfall in Baja California Sur as a Category 2 later that day. — huge run-on sentence, plus most of this information is not needed anyways.
Norbert then hit the mainland of Mexico as a Category 1 hurricane. — too imprecise. The "mainland of Mexico" could be anywhere from Sonora to the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
The final advisory on Norbert was issued on the morning of October 12. — Again, why does a person who is not a weather geek care about the final advisory? Why can't you keep it simple and say that it dissipated?
Norbert claimed 25 lives with three people missing and caused $716.4 million in damages throughout Mexico, — $716 million USD or MXN? Is that in present-year dollars or base year dollars?
One more thing here: You say that Norbert caused the worst damage in Baja California and Álamos, Sonora. — linking to
Baja California implies that it did most of its damage to the northern half of the peninsula. Link to the article on the peninsula, or just say Baja California Sur.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)reply
which at that time was mentioned on the Tropical Weather Outlook.[2] — the link given for Tropical Weather Outlook does not mention anything about it, so you need to find something different.
Can't find a link so I explained what it is, but it probably need a c/e.
and satellite intensity estimates using the Dvorak technique suggested tropical storm force winds; — suggested what about the tropical storm force winds? That they went out to eat chicken? You also need a hyphen between storm and force.
On October 7, it reached Category 2 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale — you are starting a paragraph with a pronoun, which makes it unclear what antecedent you are using (even if it is fairly obvious from context). Rephrase.
Switched "it" to "hurricane Norbert"
while Norbert developed well defined and closed eyewall via Microwave imagery.[9] — a well-defined and closed eyewall as seen in microwave imagery.
You didn't add the hyphen and now it says micorwave imagery. — microwave
Overnight on October 8, an eye appeared on infrared satellite, indicating that Norbert was intensifying and was upgraded to a major hurricane respectively.[10] — the eye was upgraded to a major hurricane? What? (Split the sentences, you are talking about two different things here.)
Continuing to rapidly strengthen over warm sea surface temperatures, it reached Category 4 status late on October 8, after intensifying 45 mph (75 km/h) over the previous 24 hours. — again, unclear antecedent; it = eye or it = Norbert? (It should be obvious which way to fix this.)
The storm peak intensity was 135 mph (215 km/h) and a peak pressure of 945 mbar (hPa; 27.91 inHg) while located 350 mi (560 km) south of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. — the storm's peak intensity; link units, as they are not common; link Cabo San Lucas
The peak intensity of Norbert is uncertain as aircraft observations were lower the classifications via Dvorak Technique.[1] — than the classifications (and you should probably use a more meaningful word, like "estimates"); also, what does "lower" mean in this context? Lower wind speeds (weaker storm) or lower central pressure (stronger storm)? You need to clarify this.
However, the cloud patter became less impressive early on October 9, and was thus downgraded into a Categor y3 hurricane, with winds of 125 mph (205 km/h).[11] — cloud pattern; Category 3, not Categor y3; and why did the storm start to weaken anyways? Colder SSTs? Shear?
At that time, it was downgraded into a weak Category 1 hurricane by October 9.[1] — you have two temporal clauses in the sentence ("at the time", "by October 9"), which makes the sentence sound weird. Fix please.
Norbert began to re-intensify as the cycle completed. — spell out eyewall replacement cycle here, as it has been a while since you mentioned what "cycle" stands for in this instance.
The cyclone turned to the north-northeast due to a mid to upper level trough that was moving over the Southwest United States. — don't link to compass directions
A hurricane warning was issued on October 10 for parts of central Baja California from Puerto San Andresito southward to Agua Blanca, and they extended around the peninsula from La Paz to Loreto. — link to
tropical cyclone watches and warnings; see if there are suitable links to Puerto San Andresito, and Agua Blanca; definitely link La Paz and Loreto.
Surgery had been performed on the link and is successful.
YEPacificHurricane
The warnings also went on the mainland west coast from Topolobampo to Guaymas. — link to both Topolobampo and Guaymas; I don't like "went on", it sounds too informal. Try "warnings were also put in place for the west coast of Sonora from Topolobampo to Guaymas."
and extended around the Baja peninsula to La Paz, and these same areas were also under tropical storm warnings as well. — use a semicolon after La Paz, and remove the "and" after the semicolon.
On October 10, officials in Baja California declared the municipalities of Loreto, Comondú y La Paz disaster areas in anticipation of severe damage from the hurricane.[13] — link to the individual municipalities (see
Municipalities of Baja California Sur for links). Also, why do you have a random Spanish conjunction there? It's and, not "y".
In Ciudad Obregon, farmers rushed to fertilize the fields prior to the passage of Norbert[14] — link to
Ciudad Obregón, Sonora; why do you have a random tidbit about Sonora in a paragraph almost completely devoted to Baja California Sur? What else happened in Sonora?
officials estimated that damages from the hurricane was MXN 8.8 billion 2008 MXN ($650 million USD).[13] — you have MXN twice there. Remove the first instance and link the second one instead.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
According to tourism officials, hotel reservations were down 40% in Los Cobos and Loreto Roofs were ripped off buildings and many trees were damaged. — Los Cabos
On the islands of Margarita and Magdalena, 40% of homes received some damage, mostly roof damage. — it's "Santa Margarita", not "Margarita"; links to
Isla Magdalena (Baja California Sur) and
Isla Santa Margarita would be appreciated here.
The La Paz airport closed prior to the arrival of the system, — we have an article on the La Paz airport (
Manuel Márquez de León International Airport); why are you linking to the city instead? Change it.
but the Los Cobos airport remained open throughout the passage of the tropical cyclone.[18] — there is no such thing as Los Cobos, it's Los Cabos, and we also have an article on the
Los Cabos International Airport itself.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?)
References 14—20: AP, AFP and Reuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Hurricane_Norbert_(2008)/GA2&action=editters should be given with the |agency= parameter in {{cite news}}.
Reference 27: The reference is unformatted (check the title parameter) , and I am not sure it meets
WP:RS.
Added a title and I am unsure about wheater it is reliable or not myself. If this article went to the
WP:FAC (it probably wont), i'd probably remove it.
YEPacificHurricane
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.
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
External links modified
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.