![]() | Hurricane Sergio (2018) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Hurricane Sergio (2018) is part of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 2, 2022. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: 12george1 ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hurricane Noah. I will be reviewing this article. I think this might be the first time I've reviewed one of your nominations.
All in all, not a bad article. Just make sure you finish these in a timely manner.-- 12george1 ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This review is trancluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane Sergio (2018)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hurricane Sergio (2018) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am hereby opening the page for Hurricane Sergio's A class review nomination as I feel the article is of good quality (I read through the article for the most part). Per the A-class criteria (which I looked at recently), this requires at least two impartial reviewers. Noah Talk 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
✗ Not ready :: I think structurally the article is well-composed and the framework is certainly cohesive and sufficient in coverage. However, aside from minor stylistic qualms, there are contradictions present in the article and content which either does not correspond with or not well-substantiated by the citations provided. Because the
A-class criteria notes that only minor style issues distinguish a featured article from an A-class article, the fact that some of the content in the article is unsubstantiated or contradictory suggests that Sergio isn't ready for the A-class designation. The following comments cover the start of the article and a bit into
§ Preparations and impact. --
TheAustinMan(
Talk ⬩
Edits)
20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
, inserted between the month and date and between measurements and their units. Examples include October 10
or 942 mbar
.TAMwhich was set in 2015. In both cases, you need not use the construction "which was".TAM
Intensification then halted for about twelve hours...does not appear to be substantiated by the TC report, which suggests that the pressure continued to fall, albeit slowly, during this time. Furthermore, the mention of this in the meteorological history section disagrees with the timing. I suggest a more shallower word than
halted.TAM
...maintained peak intensity for six hours...isn't supported by the track data, which indicates a peak from at least 12 hours (06:00–18:00 UTC on October 4).TAM
...on the Baja California Peninsula, and later in northwestern Mexico...– Seeing as the Baja California can be considered part of "northwestern Mexico", I suggest specifying where the final landfall was.TAM
Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur and Sonora on October 13 as a weak tropical storm, so this exact detail is redundant in the lead. I suggest noting this just once.TAM
damageshas a rather specific legal connotation and should not be used except when referencing legal compensation. Instead, "damage" should be used, and works as both a singular and plural form.TAM
...US$2 million in damages, over a thousand school closures, and a few hundred evacuations due to severe floodingis a rather clunky sentence construction. It's ambiguous whether the initial subject (the
landfall) or the subject raised at the end of the sentence (the
severe flooding) caused the damage, closures, and evacuations.TAM
Multiple tornadoes also spawned as a result of the increased moisture.– Given the various mechanisms for the formation of tornadoes, I'm not convinced that
increased moistureis an accurate or precise explanation for the tornadoes developing.TAM
continued to track the disturbance for a couple more days– Seeing as the storm eventually became a
long-lived tropical cyclone, I think this clause makes the inaccurate implication that the NHC stopped monitoring the system after those
couple more days.TAM
Sergio continued to gradually intensify...but since no mention is made of intensification in the first paragraph, the phrase
continued toshould not be there.TAM
microwave data,
shear, and other meteorological phrases a layperson may not understand.TAM
...halted as northwesterly shear...– The source says it was northeasterly shear.TAM
Sergio maintained its intensity for 18 hours– Given that the pressure decreased marginally during this time, it should be specified what
intensityis referring to.TAM
the mid-level ridge to the north had weakened, resulting in the storm travelling to the northwestonly says that the ridge was expected to weaken and not that it did. TAM
The storm maintained peak intensity for 12 hours before beginning to weaken..., which is disputed by the tropical cyclonre report.TAM
it was noted– Whenever possible, specify who or what
itis. See WP:WEASEL for details.TAM
At 09:00 UTC, the cyclone began to turn due to a mid-level ridge that was developing to the northwest. Over the next couple of days, Sergio turned from the northwest to the southwest.– The same idea is expressed twice over with different details, giving the appearance that they are separate events. See if you can combine these sentences.TAM
At 09:00 UTC...and is followed by a sentence starting with
At 06:00 UTC...in a very odd reversal of chronology.TAM
...a shortwave trough weakened the ridge to the northwest...neither mention the ridge weakening nor the trough being the cause of this.TAM
Sergio began to weaken due to upwelling...– again, the associated reference only says that this was a forecast and not a recap of what occurred. Predictions should not be used as sources to describe what did occur, only what was expected to occur.TAM
Sergio unexpectedly acquired the structure of an annular hurricane...– the source suggests this possibility, but also expresses doubt, noting that this was only the "appearance" of an annular hurricane and noting that Sergio "may not have a classical annular structure". This discrepancy should be noted instead of stated as fact in the article.TAM
at 18:00 UTC, the system weakened to a tropical storm, due to deteriorating conditions– what were these deteriorating conditions?TAM
Around 12:00 UTC on October 12...that is unique from the TCR that is also cited.TAM
Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur...and ending with
downed trees and utility poles in Guaymas.is unsourced.TAM
...houses and businesses suffering damageis the cause of the MX$40 million in damage despite the preceding sentence noting that there were
downed trees and utility poles, too.TAM
-- TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
All in all, a pretty good article. I'd focus on additional impacts in Baja California, and Mexico in general if you intend to take this to FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I support A-class now. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo in the "Meteorological history" section. Change upweling to upwelling where it says "After maintaining its intensity for 18 hours, the hurricane began to weaken around 00:00 UTC on October 7 due to upweling and a third eyewall replacement cycle." Also, update the URL to the "Upwelling" article. ScatteredThinker ( talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Hurricane Sergio (2018) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Hurricane Sergio (2018) is part of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 2, 2022. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: 12george1 ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hurricane Noah. I will be reviewing this article. I think this might be the first time I've reviewed one of your nominations.
All in all, not a bad article. Just make sure you finish these in a timely manner.-- 12george1 ( talk) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This review is trancluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane Sergio (2018)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hurricane Sergio (2018) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
I am hereby opening the page for Hurricane Sergio's A class review nomination as I feel the article is of good quality (I read through the article for the most part). Per the A-class criteria (which I looked at recently), this requires at least two impartial reviewers. Noah Talk 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
✗ Not ready :: I think structurally the article is well-composed and the framework is certainly cohesive and sufficient in coverage. However, aside from minor stylistic qualms, there are contradictions present in the article and content which either does not correspond with or not well-substantiated by the citations provided. Because the
A-class criteria notes that only minor style issues distinguish a featured article from an A-class article, the fact that some of the content in the article is unsubstantiated or contradictory suggests that Sergio isn't ready for the A-class designation. The following comments cover the start of the article and a bit into
§ Preparations and impact. --
TheAustinMan(
Talk ⬩
Edits)
20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
, inserted between the month and date and between measurements and their units. Examples include October 10
or 942 mbar
.TAMwhich was set in 2015. In both cases, you need not use the construction "which was".TAM
Intensification then halted for about twelve hours...does not appear to be substantiated by the TC report, which suggests that the pressure continued to fall, albeit slowly, during this time. Furthermore, the mention of this in the meteorological history section disagrees with the timing. I suggest a more shallower word than
halted.TAM
...maintained peak intensity for six hours...isn't supported by the track data, which indicates a peak from at least 12 hours (06:00–18:00 UTC on October 4).TAM
...on the Baja California Peninsula, and later in northwestern Mexico...– Seeing as the Baja California can be considered part of "northwestern Mexico", I suggest specifying where the final landfall was.TAM
Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur and Sonora on October 13 as a weak tropical storm, so this exact detail is redundant in the lead. I suggest noting this just once.TAM
damageshas a rather specific legal connotation and should not be used except when referencing legal compensation. Instead, "damage" should be used, and works as both a singular and plural form.TAM
...US$2 million in damages, over a thousand school closures, and a few hundred evacuations due to severe floodingis a rather clunky sentence construction. It's ambiguous whether the initial subject (the
landfall) or the subject raised at the end of the sentence (the
severe flooding) caused the damage, closures, and evacuations.TAM
Multiple tornadoes also spawned as a result of the increased moisture.– Given the various mechanisms for the formation of tornadoes, I'm not convinced that
increased moistureis an accurate or precise explanation for the tornadoes developing.TAM
continued to track the disturbance for a couple more days– Seeing as the storm eventually became a
long-lived tropical cyclone, I think this clause makes the inaccurate implication that the NHC stopped monitoring the system after those
couple more days.TAM
Sergio continued to gradually intensify...but since no mention is made of intensification in the first paragraph, the phrase
continued toshould not be there.TAM
microwave data,
shear, and other meteorological phrases a layperson may not understand.TAM
...halted as northwesterly shear...– The source says it was northeasterly shear.TAM
Sergio maintained its intensity for 18 hours– Given that the pressure decreased marginally during this time, it should be specified what
intensityis referring to.TAM
the mid-level ridge to the north had weakened, resulting in the storm travelling to the northwestonly says that the ridge was expected to weaken and not that it did. TAM
The storm maintained peak intensity for 12 hours before beginning to weaken..., which is disputed by the tropical cyclonre report.TAM
it was noted– Whenever possible, specify who or what
itis. See WP:WEASEL for details.TAM
At 09:00 UTC, the cyclone began to turn due to a mid-level ridge that was developing to the northwest. Over the next couple of days, Sergio turned from the northwest to the southwest.– The same idea is expressed twice over with different details, giving the appearance that they are separate events. See if you can combine these sentences.TAM
At 09:00 UTC...and is followed by a sentence starting with
At 06:00 UTC...in a very odd reversal of chronology.TAM
...a shortwave trough weakened the ridge to the northwest...neither mention the ridge weakening nor the trough being the cause of this.TAM
Sergio began to weaken due to upwelling...– again, the associated reference only says that this was a forecast and not a recap of what occurred. Predictions should not be used as sources to describe what did occur, only what was expected to occur.TAM
Sergio unexpectedly acquired the structure of an annular hurricane...– the source suggests this possibility, but also expresses doubt, noting that this was only the "appearance" of an annular hurricane and noting that Sergio "may not have a classical annular structure". This discrepancy should be noted instead of stated as fact in the article.TAM
at 18:00 UTC, the system weakened to a tropical storm, due to deteriorating conditions– what were these deteriorating conditions?TAM
Around 12:00 UTC on October 12...that is unique from the TCR that is also cited.TAM
Sergio made landfall in western Baja California Sur...and ending with
downed trees and utility poles in Guaymas.is unsourced.TAM
...houses and businesses suffering damageis the cause of the MX$40 million in damage despite the preceding sentence noting that there were
downed trees and utility poles, too.TAM
-- TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
All in all, a pretty good article. I'd focus on additional impacts in Baja California, and Mexico in general if you intend to take this to FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I support A-class now. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo in the "Meteorological history" section. Change upweling to upwelling where it says "After maintaining its intensity for 18 hours, the hurricane began to weaken around 00:00 UTC on October 7 due to upweling and a third eyewall replacement cycle." Also, update the URL to the "Upwelling" article. ScatteredThinker ( talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)