Talk:Hurricane Guillermo (1997)

Initial comments

All in all, it looks decent at a quick glance. I recommend you add some more lede so there isn't so much white space. There are still some awkward wording issues, namely the first paragraph. Be sure to rewrite it; currently it is a copyvio. The record section needs sourcing to prove it is currently 4th. Also, how do you know the two deaths in Cabo San Lucas were indirect? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I solved the impact copy-vios by making a few changes. Probably i can change the deaths to 3 directly. I can get rid of the (now 4th). That's all I could think of for the lede area.Mitchazenia 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dakar?

I don't know too much about tropical cyclones, but I'm still curious: how could the origins for a Pacific storm form off the coast of Africa? Do such waves go completely across the Americas? Nyttend 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant article is at tropical wave. Many waves cross the entire Atlantic and Central America before developing in the Pacific Ocean. For example in 1993 there were a total of 70 tropical waves. Thirteen of the named 15 storms to form in the east Pacific that year originated as waves (this is more than developed into Atlantic storms), all of these originated in Africa. See the figure at the bottom of page 5 of this report.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Guillermo (1997)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Currently reviewing. Naerii 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Alright, so. My comments:

• Well my first impression was that it's fairly short, but after reading the article I think it's probably fairly comprehensive. I guess there's not much you can say about a hurricane.
• The section on Impact and Records uses language that is not necessarily appropriate, for example 'crashed', 'chased', 'pumelled'. This is language that I would expect to see in a newspaper article but the tone doesn't seem quite right for an encyclopedia article.
• This sentence did confuse me:

• "On 5 August, a 19-year old man was swept away about a mile north of the Huntington Beach Pier."; maybe it's just my poor English, but I'm not sure if this means that he was swept away to that far out (a mile north of the pier), or if he started off being a mile north of the pier and was swept away, and if so was he on a beach or something? I think it would be more clear as something like, "a 19 year old man on a beach a mile north of the huntington beach pier was swept away by the sea".

• On the whole though it's quite a good article, so I'll put it on hold to let you either make changes or show that my concerns are completely invalid :) Naerii 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is a little short, but as the storm never made landfall, it's pretty good there is as much information as there is! If it made landfall, it might violate size guidelines. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I removed/changed the words considered newspapery. I rewrote the offending sentence to make it more clear (it was like that way in the source, the PD NCDC). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• The image captions could do with work... they're pretty vague and non-descriptive. —Giggy 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have expanded two of the picture captions. The one that is a path of the storm I did not expand because that is the way template:storm path displays them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet. Thanks for the quick response; I'm now passing this article. Thanks for the good work! Naerii 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe it is a GA, the meteorological history section was so short for a cat 5 that lasted nearly a month, by the way, it did a double eyewall replacement. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And satellite images was available by then, which helps a lot for MH section. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Guillermo (1997). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~283101
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~283099

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2018

Hurricane Guillermo (1997) → Hurricane Guillermo – Hurricane Guillermo of 1997 is the only tropical cyclone named Guillermo to have its own article. Because no storm named Guillermo has ever affected land, I think that Guillermo of 1997 could be a primary topic, as even though it did not affect land, it still had effects on swells on the Pacific coast. It was also a Category 5 hurricane, and it is the only tropical cyclone named Guillermo that has its own article. (Guillermo has only been used in the East Pacific, so we would not need to worry about other storms around the world). CooperScience (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reason as basically other RM's. Neither are any likely to be viewed than any other incarnation - only weather geeks care that it was a Category 5. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - 1997's Hurricane Guillermo was more significant than any other Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone named Guillermo both intensity-wise (as it was the ninth strongest Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone on record) and longevity-wise (including its time as an extratropical cyclone, Guillermo lasted approximately 25 days). Also, as CooperScience said, the name Guillermo has only been used in the Eastern Pacific basin. While 1997's Guillermo mostly stayed away from land, the majority of Eastern Pacific tropical cyclones named Guillermo did not impact land very much as well. Oof-off (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because it was stronger doesn't make it the primary topic. None of the Guillermo's are ever gonna be read by anything more than weather geeks who browse season articles due to lack of local land impact. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There's two things I have to say about this. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, and please correct me.

- "Just because it was stronger doesn't make it the primary topic."

In a case like Guillermo where pretty much every storm is out to sea, strength is a major factor of notability. If no storm named Guillermo does much damage, people are mainly going to focus on the storm's strength (the strongest Guillermo storm, which would be the 1997 incarnation). By this logic, Guillermo 1997 would be the most notable. The closest Guillermo to 1997's in strength is the 2009 incarnation, which was a Category 3.

- "None of the Guillermo's are ever gonna be read by anything more than weather geeks who browse season articles due to lack of local land impact."

That's true, who is going to look for an article for a storm that happened in 1997? Most likely people who are interested in weather, which is a fairly small audience. Out of that audience, most people are going to look at the Guillermo 1997 article because it was the strongest. Oof-off (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

But if only so-called "Weather Geeks" (Which would include me), are going to look at the Guillermos, then they aren't they most likely going to look at Hurricane Guillermo of 1997? CooperScience (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no, given that they most likely arrive to this article from the season articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

But how would you know that? They are more than likely going to search for the Category 5 Hurricane Guillermo than the weaker ones. CooperScience (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that that's how, in the days before I joined Wikipedia 10 years ago when I was 10, that's how I browsed for articles like these in general season articles - a view that based on how most fairly minor storms like these generally tend to get fewer views than the season page - is probably not far fetched. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's only you. That can't be used as a generalization for all Wikipedia viewers. That was also ten years ago, so perhaps times have changed. If this is a minor storm, then all the other storms named Guillermo must be far less significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperScience (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But as I hinted above, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption, given Wikipedia's emphasis on de-orphanization. From a meteorological prospective, I don't think there's a major gap between the 1997 and 2009 versions, for instance. Both were potent major hurricanes with minor land impact; this version just happened to have a slightly warmer eye and colder cloud tops around the eye, resulting in higher Dvorak numbers, and thus a Category 5 upgraded. Both weakened heavily as it turned north, and this one's extratropical remnants just happen to last a little longer than most EPAC majors. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is historically and figuratively a large difference between a Category 3 and a Category 5 hurricane. Besides, as I mentioned, if this is the only page about a tropical cyclone named Guillermo then there is no reason for it not to be the primary topic. Actually, maybe this series of replies is getting a little long. CooperScience (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not as much as popular belief, given that this basin sees storms near or at 140 knots on a regular basis (pre-1988 data basically is not reliable in this basin). As for the other Guilermo's, Hurricane Guillermo (2009) ans Hurricane Guillermo (2015) redirect to the appropriate season section, so, that would be considered part of the "Hurricane Guillermo" series and thus I don't why the fact this just happens to have more content than the other incarnations of the storm, and thus, be article worthy. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Yellow Evan. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by preponderance of reliable sources, which has not been met here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If this article fails to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then how is it a featured article? Most of the citations in this article are reliable, taken from meteorological centers such as the National Hurricane Center. CooperScience (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've ever read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which has nothing to do with citations. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That comment was not meant to only explain citations. This article does have a preponderance of reliable sources, more so than any sources that could be flagged as unreliable. CooperScience (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well no shit given that this is an FA but that has nothing to do with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: per above. --B dash (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – my rationale is reflected in the preceding opposes. Guillermo was indeed a Category 5, but in examining a preponderance of sources it does not appear that Guillermo 1997 has established itself as a clear primary topic in the general public, which is what the tropical cyclones project bases its assessments of primary topic on. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)