This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles
Move this article
Basically, the general format is having the
Hurricane Name as the retired storm, with
Hurricane Name (Disambiguation as the disambiguations, unless there were no retired storms, so the disambigs would have the name and other storms would have
Hurricane Name (Year). However, based on how destructive Paul was and how well-known it was as a destructive storm (IMO), I propose it gets the main article.
Hurricanehink15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
No objection. However I think for the atlantic, which has been more consistent about retiring names for longer, we should stick to the yearly suffix entirely for non-retired storms (though there are several "coincidentally" retired storms like
Hurricane Francelia which are tempting not to add the year to).
Jdorje21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Good point about storms like Francelia. That, Belle, and a few others could use a redirect for their name (like Francelia (1969) redirects to Francelia) but they can stay with the main article in my book. Especially if the storm is notable, like Alice in 1954-5. That doesn't need to be Alice (1954), but a redirect couldn't hurt.
Hurricanehink22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Todo
Some more on impact, and a little more in the intro. How about a breakdown of deaths by country? What countries did the TD even strike?
Jdorje20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
In case you don't know, the
Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center in San Francisco was tasked with warning in tropical cyclones in that basin through the 1970's and most of the 1980's. I changed the line in this article...other articles may be similarly flawed.
Thegreatdr13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"The origins of Paul were moving slowly over" ~ the use of "origins" here seems strange, it would seem more natural to use the "original [something]" or similar or rephrase it differently
"initialled" ~ I don't understand its use here. The definition I would use is "Mark or sign (a document) with one's initials, esp. in order to authorize or validate it". *"Advisories" also seems strange here (used at least twice); it links to a disambiguation page on the second occurrence which isn't particularly helpful in explaining what you mean
"50,000 humans" sounds odd; I think '50,000 people' would be better - humans would be acceptable if there were an obvious need to clarify with regards to animals of some sort, but there isn't.
A quick scan over the article with regards to the other criteria seems OK. However, the article desperately needs a copyedit. With the problems outlined above, I suggest requesting one off the guild, or else a determined effort to bring the article into line. I'm putting the article on hold so this can happen; in the meantime, I'll be assessing for the other criteria. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The reason I haven't updated this is because I was expecting, well, more. While you've addressed what I picked up, it was really the whole thing that needed copyediting. There are still problems, like "After five days of rainfall, rivers greatly overflooded, and resulted in severe mudslides." (sense), "resulting in Paul to reach a peak intensity" (grammar) "was estimated at $100 million" (lacks a period/full stop at the end). The whole thing has errors like that. I can keep the article on hold further, or I can fail it and you can renominate it when you're done. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Missed the article yet again on my watchlist. I feel I can't make a judgement now although it looks favourable, so I'm requesting a second opinion. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Second opinion
The article is riddled with grammatical errors, misplaced commas, unclear phrasing. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout, sentence by sentence by someone with a good command of written English, clearly fails criterion #1a at present.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Please elaborate. While it certainly falls short from brilliant prose, I believe in its current state it's an overall cohesive article. I re-copyedited it, and there were a few misplaced commas as far as I could tell; I don't see any patent grammatical errors that stick out enough to fail the criteria. If you could point out at least a few instances, I might get a better understanding of what you're implying.
★ Auree talk02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Hurricane Paul was a particularly deadly and destructive Pacific hurricane, killing a total of 1,696 people and causing $1.156 billion in damage during its formative stage. needless comma, suggest change to "which killed"
The hurricane then commenced accelerating toward the northeast, and upon doing so it reached peak winds of 110 mph (175 km/h). "Commenced accelerating" - "accelerated" Better to simplify
It is not a preference, it is a matter of correct word choice. Why not write: "The hurricane then accelerated towards the northeast reaching peak wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h)." Clearer and simpler.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks to produce severe flooding, and multiple mudslides impacted the region. Clumsy - "impacted"?
Throughout Central America, at least 1,432 people perished due to these effects, with most of the fatalities occurring in El Salvador and Guatemala; another 225 deaths were attributed to the depression in southern Mexico. Near the area of landfall further north in that country, Paul was responsible for moderate damage and 24 fatalities. Clumsy and confusing.
The precursor disturbance to Paul—an area of low barometric pressure—was first noted near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua on September 15, accompanied by a large amount of thunderstorm activity. Needlessly complex, rewrite in plain English
This is a meteorology article. You're going to have to expect complexities, and compared to some other storm articles this isn't that complex at all.
★ Auree talk16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
"An area of low barometric pressure and thunderstorm activity was first noted on September 15, near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. This was the precursor disturbance of Paul." I don't expect poor prose in any GA. As it appears that you can't see this, I question why you are copy-editing.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
In the aftermath of the storm, the Government of El Salvador received criticism for failing to keep the public well informed. for failing to keep the public well informed. "were critized" is better than "received criticism"
Due to the threat of the hurricane, an alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur. this type of phrasing which is common throughout the article is needlessly clumsy. Simpler and better to say something like "A hurricane alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur." And a date is needed for this.
Feel free to take a look yourself. All issues have been addressed, but I am not sure if there is more.
YEPacificHurricane
I believe this remains my call. I see a clear improvement since Jezhotwell's comment, and so now believe this article should pass unless there are any clear objections. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Requested move 24 April 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose again, same as the others, the year is a critical part of the identity even if (2012) and (2006) they are more recent and readers are more likely to have been recently affected. Present titling serves everyone and is fine per
WP:TITLE.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I downgraded both the death and damage total figures by quite a bit. I wrote this article eight years ago when I was a very edgy and highly annoying teenager whodidn't know as much about death/damage totals as I do know. I didn't even know LexisNexis was a thing back in the day, and the article is not how I'd write it today (then again, I refuse to touch the EPAC now).
YEPacificHurricane18:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles
Move this article
Basically, the general format is having the
Hurricane Name as the retired storm, with
Hurricane Name (Disambiguation as the disambiguations, unless there were no retired storms, so the disambigs would have the name and other storms would have
Hurricane Name (Year). However, based on how destructive Paul was and how well-known it was as a destructive storm (IMO), I propose it gets the main article.
Hurricanehink15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
No objection. However I think for the atlantic, which has been more consistent about retiring names for longer, we should stick to the yearly suffix entirely for non-retired storms (though there are several "coincidentally" retired storms like
Hurricane Francelia which are tempting not to add the year to).
Jdorje21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Good point about storms like Francelia. That, Belle, and a few others could use a redirect for their name (like Francelia (1969) redirects to Francelia) but they can stay with the main article in my book. Especially if the storm is notable, like Alice in 1954-5. That doesn't need to be Alice (1954), but a redirect couldn't hurt.
Hurricanehink22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Todo
Some more on impact, and a little more in the intro. How about a breakdown of deaths by country? What countries did the TD even strike?
Jdorje20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
In case you don't know, the
Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center in San Francisco was tasked with warning in tropical cyclones in that basin through the 1970's and most of the 1980's. I changed the line in this article...other articles may be similarly flawed.
Thegreatdr13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"The origins of Paul were moving slowly over" ~ the use of "origins" here seems strange, it would seem more natural to use the "original [something]" or similar or rephrase it differently
"initialled" ~ I don't understand its use here. The definition I would use is "Mark or sign (a document) with one's initials, esp. in order to authorize or validate it". *"Advisories" also seems strange here (used at least twice); it links to a disambiguation page on the second occurrence which isn't particularly helpful in explaining what you mean
"50,000 humans" sounds odd; I think '50,000 people' would be better - humans would be acceptable if there were an obvious need to clarify with regards to animals of some sort, but there isn't.
A quick scan over the article with regards to the other criteria seems OK. However, the article desperately needs a copyedit. With the problems outlined above, I suggest requesting one off the guild, or else a determined effort to bring the article into line. I'm putting the article on hold so this can happen; in the meantime, I'll be assessing for the other criteria. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The reason I haven't updated this is because I was expecting, well, more. While you've addressed what I picked up, it was really the whole thing that needed copyediting. There are still problems, like "After five days of rainfall, rivers greatly overflooded, and resulted in severe mudslides." (sense), "resulting in Paul to reach a peak intensity" (grammar) "was estimated at $100 million" (lacks a period/full stop at the end). The whole thing has errors like that. I can keep the article on hold further, or I can fail it and you can renominate it when you're done. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Missed the article yet again on my watchlist. I feel I can't make a judgement now although it looks favourable, so I'm requesting a second opinion. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Second opinion
The article is riddled with grammatical errors, misplaced commas, unclear phrasing. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout, sentence by sentence by someone with a good command of written English, clearly fails criterion #1a at present.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Please elaborate. While it certainly falls short from brilliant prose, I believe in its current state it's an overall cohesive article. I re-copyedited it, and there were a few misplaced commas as far as I could tell; I don't see any patent grammatical errors that stick out enough to fail the criteria. If you could point out at least a few instances, I might get a better understanding of what you're implying.
★ Auree talk02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Hurricane Paul was a particularly deadly and destructive Pacific hurricane, killing a total of 1,696 people and causing $1.156 billion in damage during its formative stage. needless comma, suggest change to "which killed"
The hurricane then commenced accelerating toward the northeast, and upon doing so it reached peak winds of 110 mph (175 km/h). "Commenced accelerating" - "accelerated" Better to simplify
It is not a preference, it is a matter of correct word choice. Why not write: "The hurricane then accelerated towards the northeast reaching peak wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h)." Clearer and simpler.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks to produce severe flooding, and multiple mudslides impacted the region. Clumsy - "impacted"?
Throughout Central America, at least 1,432 people perished due to these effects, with most of the fatalities occurring in El Salvador and Guatemala; another 225 deaths were attributed to the depression in southern Mexico. Near the area of landfall further north in that country, Paul was responsible for moderate damage and 24 fatalities. Clumsy and confusing.
The precursor disturbance to Paul—an area of low barometric pressure—was first noted near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua on September 15, accompanied by a large amount of thunderstorm activity. Needlessly complex, rewrite in plain English
This is a meteorology article. You're going to have to expect complexities, and compared to some other storm articles this isn't that complex at all.
★ Auree talk16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
"An area of low barometric pressure and thunderstorm activity was first noted on September 15, near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. This was the precursor disturbance of Paul." I don't expect poor prose in any GA. As it appears that you can't see this, I question why you are copy-editing.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
In the aftermath of the storm, the Government of El Salvador received criticism for failing to keep the public well informed. for failing to keep the public well informed. "were critized" is better than "received criticism"
Due to the threat of the hurricane, an alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur. this type of phrasing which is common throughout the article is needlessly clumsy. Simpler and better to say something like "A hurricane alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur." And a date is needed for this.
Feel free to take a look yourself. All issues have been addressed, but I am not sure if there is more.
YEPacificHurricane
I believe this remains my call. I see a clear improvement since Jezhotwell's comment, and so now believe this article should pass unless there are any clear objections. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Requested move 24 April 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose again, same as the others, the year is a critical part of the identity even if (2012) and (2006) they are more recent and readers are more likely to have been recently affected. Present titling serves everyone and is fine per
WP:TITLE.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I downgraded both the death and damage total figures by quite a bit. I wrote this article eight years ago when I was a very edgy and highly annoying teenager whodidn't know as much about death/damage totals as I do know. I didn't even know LexisNexis was a thing back in the day, and the article is not how I'd write it today (then again, I refuse to touch the EPAC now).
YEPacificHurricane18:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply