Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Humberto (2019)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [1].

Hurricane Humberto (2019)[edit]

Nominator(s): 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) and Juliancolton 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Humberto, which temporarily disrupted relief efforts in the Bahamas in the wake of Hurricane Dorian before causing extensive wind damage on Bermuda back in September 2019. After working with Juliancolton, we believe it meets the standards of a featured article, and we look forward to addressing your concerns and completing a successful nomination. Thanks! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Image review from Hurricanehink Kinda a nitpick about the satellite images, but the image description has one date format, while the date itself is a different format. Otherwise, all images are fine to use, with proper sourcing and valid permission, as well as alt-text. The storm track map doesn't have alt text, your call if you want to do that, but since you have the others... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I reviewed the article for GAN, and I was very impressed with the writing of the article (and its comprehensiveness for such a recent storm). I'm happy to support this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, and more generally for all your help in improving the article through meticulous scrutiny of content and style. I've edited the Commons file descriptions for date uniformity, and added the storm path alt text, as suggested. Sincerely, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Infobox gives a damage figure of $25 million. However, the text specifies that this was damage in Bermuda alone. Were there no damage costs elsewhere?
  • The See also section states that "Hurricane Fabian (2003) [is] the most recent tropical cyclone to cause fatalities in Bermuda" - this seems like something that ought to be cited
  • Be consistent whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include publication locations
    • This is still not consistent. For example, you include Miami for the National Hurricane Center in FN8, but not in FN7. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The (thoroughly unnecessary) location has been removed from ref 8. That field is now uniformly absent. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Press release" is not an author
  • Be consistent in whether you list "staff writers" as author - for example FN17 has a similar attribution but doesn't include that in the citation
  • Press agencies like AP should use |agency= not |author=
  • FN34 is missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all your concerns. The $25 million figure from Bermuda stands for the cyclone as a whole since it principally affected that island. Thank you for your review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAustinMan – this article is well-written and succinct. I'll likely be supporting this article's FA candidacy following resolution of the following qualms I found, most of which are minor:

  • Some description of what a major hurricane is, either by link or by footnote, would be useful for readers. A few wikilinks in the article could be moved to their first appearances, such as Florida. A few other links may be in order such as the §tilt section of the trough article, tropical depression, maximum sustained wind, among others.
  • From page 5 of the TC report, it appears that the buoy mentioned in the article registered a 96 kt wind. This is properly stated in the article as converting to 110 mph, but the resulting 177 km/h conversion is derived from the 110 mph derivation, not the 96 kt value as reported (=178 km/h). Consider unit conversions being consistent with the originally reported data values in the article, supplementing that with a footnote where necessary.
  • Do we know why the trough became negatively tilted? This seems to occur without impetus in the meteorological history section.
  • It's said that although (or equivalently, despite), the disturbance didn't have a closed center of circulation, the NHC initiated potential tropical cyclone advisories. This suggests that the initiation of advisories was contrary to some protocol, but wasn't the potential tropical cyclone advisory issued because it didn't have a closed center of circulation? Some sort of explanation explaining what a closed center of circulation has to do with a tropical cyclone would inform the reader on the connection here.
  • It should be specified whose northeastern quadrant is being referred to.
  • Minor nitpick of changing trough which contributed to trough that contributed
  • I'm confused as to what is meant by a more orderly storm center, and the advisory discussion referenced isn't aiding me in that.
  • I don't see any mention of 84°F (29°C) sea surface temperatures in the cyclone report.
  • The article says that a reconnaissance mission on the evening of September 18 was the basis of Humberto's upgrade into a major hurricane, but this is not noted in the cyclone report that's referenced in that sentence. Perhaps another advisory discussion should be cited in that line; the discussion cited in the next sentence over is from the morning of September 17 so that could be a little confusing.
  • The hurricane's winds "reach" certain values, and not the hurricane itself, so the phrase it reached maximum sustained winds may need some tweaking.
  • Where is flight-level in relation to the dropsonde measuring the 159 mph winds? Presumably the dropsonde is descending most of the time.
  • I don't see Andros Island being excluded from the northwestern Bahamas in the cyclone report.
  • The article says that Humberto's close passage of the Bahamas had the effect of interrupting the distribution of emergency supplies, but the linked news article only says that it threatened to do that, not that it happened.
  • I'm not sure if the downing of only a single large branch is worth generalizing to the level of some tree damage for an entire county. Are there any other sources for the effects of Humberto in Duval County?
  • Probably worth specifying above sea level for the elevated Maritime Operations Centre station mentioned in the Bermuda impact section.
  • The impact section says the hurricane's Bermuda damage exceeded $25 million, while the lede and infobox suggest that it simply did $25 million in damage. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 18:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful and thorough review, TheAustinMan. I've added an additional citation to support the exclusion of Andros, rephrased the indirect Bahamian impact, and removed the mention of tree damag in Duval County; that lone downed branch is the only related LSR, so it's likely not worth mentioning. I know some other changes have already been made – TropicalAnalystwx13, could you briefly chime in on which points you've addressed/what still needs to be done? Thanks both, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I took the liberty of going through bullet-by-bullet and fixing everything that hadn't been tended to. The only suggested change I opted not to implement was an elaboration of why the trough became negatively tilted. It's an intrinsic part of the longwave trough life-cyclone and I feel that delving into jet streak dynamics and vorticity advection would be well beyond the scope of this article. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good on my end. Excellent, concise effort on the article, which looks good to go for FA. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Factotem[edit]

Meteorological history

  • "...while northern portion..." missing "the"
  • "These convective bursts, largely driven by diurnal cycles, led to the development of a broad surface low on the morning of September 12,[1] as the disturbance turned north-northwest..." Pretty sure the comma after September 12 is unnecessary
  • "While progressing over sea surface temperatures around 84°F (29°C),[5] Humberto intensified over the next day." I found this sentence awkward, mainly for the replication of the word "over". Maybe reword to "While moving above sea surface temperatures of around 84°F (29°C),[5] Humberto intensified over the next day."?
  • "The hurricane acquired a large eye..." "Acquired" makes it sound like it found an eye. Wouldn't "developed" work better here?
  • "A reconnaissance aircraft investigated the hurricane during the evening of September 18, and data from that mission was used as the basis for upgrading Humberto to a Category 3 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 17." Not sure "investigated" is the right word here. You could maybe simplify the sentence as "Data from a reconnaissance flight during the evening of September 18 was used as the basis for upgrading Humberto to a Category 3 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 17." Also, was the upgrade really applied restrospectively or is there a mistake with the dates here?
  • "This upgrade arrived..." makes it sound like the upgrade was some sort of entity. Better "This upgrade was made..." or "This upgrade was applied..."?
  • "However, these values were recorded in two-second intervals..." -> at two-second intervals.

Preparations

  • "A tropical storm watch was first issued for Bermuda at 21:00 UTC on September 16 and ultimately upgraded to a hurricane warning 24 hours later" Unless there were some intervening changes in watch/warning, that "ultimately" is not necessary.
  • There were intervening changes. The normal escalation sequence is TS watch → TS warning → HU watch → HU warning, but my personal feeling is that listing each change can be rather prosaic and gratuitous. The most important benchmarks, IMO, are the first advisory, the highest level, and the final discontinuation. Should this be made more clear? – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then no, fine as is. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ferry service was suspended..." If there was only one ferry service, shouldn't that be "The ferry service was suspended..." or, if more than one, "Ferry services were suspended..."?
  • "The government opened its only official hurricane shelter in the Cedarbridge Academy, with 30 support staff from various agencies and accommodations for up to 100 people; individuals who lived on boats or who felt unsafe in their homes were encouraged to take advantage of the facility." Using "with" as a conjunction is, I believe, not good English, and this long sentence can, I think, be made easier to digest by breaking it into multiple sentences. Something like, "The government opened its only official hurricane shelter in the Cedarbridge Academy. It was staffed by 30 people from various agencies and provided accommodations for up to 100 people. Individuals who lived on boats or who felt unsafe in their homes were encouraged to take advantage of the facility." To my old world eye, it should be accommodation, not accommodations, but ignore if that's a US spelling thing.
  • Nitpick: "Governor John Rankin placed 120 members of the Royal Bermuda Regiment on standby,[15] while ambulances and Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCO) crews were pre-positioned in strategic locations across the island." That "while" should really be an "and", but if the two events were concurrent then "while" is not technically wrong.

The Bahamas

  • "However, Humberto's proximity to the disaster area did have the effect of briefly closing small airfields while distribution of emergency supplies was underway." "However" is not necessary. Were aircraft using those airfields still in the air, as this sentence implies? If not, you could maybe simplify this sentence to "Humberto's proximity to the disaster area briefly closed small airfields, halting the distribution of emergency supplies.
  • I'm struggling a bit with this line. The initial construction was very close in essence to your suggestion, but another reviewer suggested it may not have faithfully represented the source material. We know that airfields were closed, and we know that those same airfields were being used during this period to accept emergency deliveries, but I'm having trouble finding a source that plainly lays out "Humberto disrupted distribution of supplies." I've tried to rework the sentence once more. If it's too weaselly, I have one last idea. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited this a bit myself. Understand the problem being faithful to the source, and your change was fine except that "have the effect of" was unnecessarily wordy when you could have simply written "caused", which is what I changed it to. Obviously, if this introduces meaning that is not supported by the sources, then by all means change it again. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States

  • "...21 bathers were rescued from the rough seas..." The definite article is not necessary here (...21 bathers were rescued from rough seas...")

Bermuda

  • "Powerful westerly winds were by far the most severe aspect of the hurricane in Bermuda." I don't think "by far" is necessary here
  • "...before hurricane-force winds overspread the islands." Overspread sounds odd to me. Maybe "spread over"?
  • "...the highest waves in the seas off the territory's northern coast were analyzed near 42 ft (13 m)." The source does indeed mention "NOAA OPC wave analysis", but then goes on to talk of "recorded maximum seas". I think recorded is a much better word to use than analyzed, which brings to my mind people taking samples and peering through microscopes.
  • In the second paragraph, you mix 10-minute, one-minute and ten-minute. You should be consistent. Strictly speaking, per MOS:NUMNOTES, you should avoid mixing letters and numbers for comparable values, though the example given in that guideline is within a single sentence, whereas you're spreading these out across different sentences, and "1-minute" somehow doesn't look right to me.
  • "These intense winds caused extensive damage, particularly to trees, roofs, and power lines, with the worst effects concentrated in western areas." Not entirely sure of my ground here, but it appears to be another case of "with" used as a conjunction. You could write this as "These intense winds caused extensive damage, particularly to trees, roofs, and power lines; the worst effects were concentrated in western areas."
  • "Humberto left more than 27,900 electric customers..." Do you mean "electricity" customers here?

Aftermath

  • "...the Royal Bermuda Regiment assisted governmental agencies in removing debris from roadways to reestablish safe road travel." Why not "government", without the "al"? Why "roadways" and not simply "roads"? More important, you don't need to state "to reestablish safe road travel" - why else would they clear debris from roads?
  • "As BELCO crews repaired electricity infrastructure..." repaired the electricity infrastructure?
  • "A small number of outages persisted 10 days after the storm's onslaught." I don't have the impression that there was an "onslaught" Can't you simply write "after the storm"?
  • "...remained blocked for up to several weeks." Is the "up to" necessary?
  • "...damaged structures received temporary protection with the use of tarps." Why not simply write "damaged structures were temporarily protected by tarps."?

A few issues above, but generally I found the article clear and easy to follow. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem, thank you for your thorough and very constructive review. Your suggestions have helped tighten up the prose here and will no doubt serve to improve my future work as well. I've implemented most of the edits as suggested, and left two comments above, where I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. Support on prose. Factotem (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note - is @Nikkimaria: satisfied on the source corrections? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One item pending above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Humberto_(2019)/archive1&oldid=954158407"