Talk:Hurricane Elida (2002)

Records

I researched through the EPAC best track, and Elida set these records for Pacific hurricanes. Note: I did not include Patsy 59, as its entire duration is not available, not to mention that it was pre-satellite times.

• Shortest time from developing to Category 3 status - Elida 02 - 30 hours
• Shortest time from developing to Category 4 status - Elida 02 - 36 hours
• Shortest time from developing to Category 5 status - Elida 02 - 48 hours
• Shortest time from being named to Category 3 status - Elida 02 - 24 hours
• Shortest time from being named to Category 4 status - Elida 02 - 30 hours
• Shortest time from being named to Category 5 status - Elida 02 - 42 hours

--♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, bad Hink. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The hurricane set many records for fast development. After first becoming a depression, it became a Category 3 hurricane in 30 hours; a Category 4 hurricane in 36 hours; and a Category 5 hurricane in 48 hours, all of which are records. Elida also set similar records for fast formation after being named, becoming a Category 3 in 24 hours; a Category 4 in 30 hours; and a Category 5 in 42 hours.

Elida was the first of three Category 5 hurricanes to form in the East Pacific basin during 2002, making the 2002 season tied with the 1994 season for the most Category 5 hurricanes to form during one season since reliable records began in the basin in 1971, but Hurricanes John and Emilia in 1994 reached cat 5 in the central pacific, so 2002 had the most East Pacific Category 5's in one season. The other two hurricanes to reach this intensity this year were Hernan and Kenna. Elida was the 2nd strongest July Pacific Hurricane on record, behind 1994's Gilma. Elida was also one of only twelve hurricanes in the Pacific east of the International Date Line to reach Category 5 intensity in total.

References

Todo?

Even though I'm already upping it for Good Article status, what would this article need for FA, if anything? Jake52 My island 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Although heavy waves triggered by Elida were able to reach Mexico, no damages or casualties were reported in relation to the hurricane. Change that sentence to say waves were able to reach the Mexican coastline, rather than Mexico. Juliancolton (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. It's changed. Jake52 My island 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake52 - if you're interested in FA status, you should try for a peer review. I recommend you expand the lede (add more about the storm history), add the records I listed above (which you could cite the EPAC best track), split the SH into four paragraphs (the three paragraphs are huge), add non-breaking spaces (see this in edit window - 24 hours instead of 24 hours), and go over the writing again, as I don't think it's quite up to professional quality. There are some contractions, and, for example, the phrase "intensity... went down" is a bit vernacular. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a tall order...as well it should be. Besides "best article" and "piece of cake" aren't exactly the best of paired phrases. As far as lede, records, non-breaking spaces, and contradictions go, I can handle them. However, I'm by no means a quality copyeditor. Help on the "professional quality writing" is needed and MUCH appreciated. Thanks! Jake52 My island 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, though it could be better. The storm history is a tad long in places, and some sentences could be refined a bit, but all in all pretty good.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Good work finding that much information for a storm that didn't affect land much.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

I'd like if there was better unit consistency; if the original unit is rounded, then the converted unit should also be rounded. Overall, good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Elida (2002). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922225446/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002elida.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002elida.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)