Talk:1989 Pacific hurricane season

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

A decent article needs images to improve its quality juan andrés 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible we could make a main article for Hurricane Kiko? it caused severe damage in Baja california, and was one of only 2 major hurricanes to strike the Eastern side of the peninsula. I think it should deserve a main article. Does anyone agree about this? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't retired, so it wont get a main article. An article for that storm would be nice but not a main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I didn't mean a MAIN article; I just meant something like Hurricane Kiko (1989), not just Hurricane Kiko. It was signifigant. Some reasons of why I think it was signifigant include the following:

• One of just 2 major hurricanes to make landfall on the Eastern side of the Baja Peninsula; the other being Hurricane Olivia in 1967.

• One of only 5 storms named Kiko.

• 6th most intense landfalling Pacific Hurricane, according to the Chart to the right.

These are reasons of why I think it should have a main article named Hurricane Kiko (1989). Also, it was strange because it developed out of a Mesoscale Convective System, an area of thunderstorms that forms due to the Orographic Effect. They rarely develop into hurricanes, but with Kiko, it became a category 3 out of this type of system. Do you agree now? Well? Can Kiko have an article? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question; can Kiko have an article saying Hurricane Kiko (1989)? I put some facts it set above which support it. So can it have an article? I know the name wasn't retired after this year but I don't want the article to be just Hurricane Kiko. I want it to be Hurricane Kiko (1989). Do you agree with this? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every storm can have an article. However, you just have to wait for an editor to create it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:1989 Pacific hurricane season/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TimonyCrickets (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the this article is looking very good and is close to a GA status. There are a few issues which you should address that I will outline before. I am giving this article a hold status while these issues are addressed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The spelling issues I am finding are not typos in the sense that something it spelled incorrectly, but that a word is wrong or that grammar is an issue. For example in "Tropical Storm Narda" you have a sentence starting with "Upon become a tropical cyclone, Narda" which I will fix now, but their are many other similar occurances of grammatical issues throughout. Also, I have noticed a number of small sentences that could be conbined together. For example, many of the sections end with something similar to "The system never affected land." Which could be combined with the sentence before.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I agree with your assessment that only some Hurricane Season articles have the Season Summary. I think changing it to Storms works just fine.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I believe a good copy edit is still in order before this article is ready for Good Article status.

I believe I have fix those issues. My spell checker does not pick up any typos, relating to the season summary IMO it is not required. It is in some hurricane season articles not in others. I hope I have addressed theses issues.YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I have fixed the lead and will give the article a copyedit soon. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks better. I would look at adding back in the same citation you had there before, as it is still applicable and adds some good information to that section. Beyond that I am calling that part good. TimonyCrickets (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but there is no need for sources in the lead. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. And I think your source is quite good in the lead, so I added it back in for you. I think it fits well. I also did a bit more copyediting for you. All minor. I'll be approving this now. Great work!TimonyCrickets (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned at the quality of this article and feel that it does not meet the GA standards, i will try and give some feedback here.Jason Rees (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm names

To start i will deal with my area of expertise - the names.

1. No names were retired, so the list was used again in the 1995 season. - Reference please the reference at the bottom of the section does not cover it.
2. No names were retired, so the list was used again in the 1995 season. The same list was used for the 1983 season, except for the names X, Y, and Z names, which were added to eastern Pacific lists starting in 1985. - please chuck that sentence out and say that This is the same list of names that was used in the 1983 pacific hurricane season, except for the X, Y, and Z names, which were added to the list of names in 1988. (not 1985).
3. The first name used would have been Aka. - Thats not correct, this was the first season that the CPHC named systems themselves using an annual list of names.
4. The reference quoted does not have the naming list for the EPAC - it is just a file of best track anaylsis.

References

1. Reference 1 needs expanding out - Author, Work (NHC), Publisher (HPC) date published and date accessed. Also most of the time this reference doesnt need to be used.
2. You need to check all of your authors as some are cited as Name missing Gross or GBC or even not provided when the reference gives a name or a set of initials.

Adolph

1. Please do not use Nautical miles per project standards instead use Miles and KM
2. Reference 5 - needs the forecasters name
3. "Tracking towards the west, the system briefly dissipated on May 30" - This isn't backed up by your source.

Cosme

1. Reference 9 & 10 need the forecasters full name, not his initials. (Gilbert B Clark)
2. On June 18 a tropical disturbance formed off the coast of Mexico. - How many miles or km
3. that the disturbance developed into Tropical Depression Three-E - Grammar needs a had
4. needs more in the way of impact

04E

1. You use an unofficial version of HURDAT to cite the fact that 04E didn't develop - even though their is a report stating the same thing.
2. It also needs a rewrite to expand it.

05E

1. Needs expanding

07E

1. Needs expanding

22E

1. Needs expanding

23E

1. Needs expanding

23E

1. Needs expanding

24E

1. Looks ok and should be used as a template for the rest of the depressions.

Thank you very much for the review. I have addressed theses issues with a few exceptions. I feel the 4-E does not need an expansion because it is at similar length to weak tropical storms. Given the fact that there is a sub-article for cosme I did not expand the impact section. Throughout the article, the only reason why i don't put forecasters name in because the NHC did not list there name. Again, thank you. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/118/5/pdf/i1520-0493-118-5-1186.pdf
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:47:55, 404 Not Found
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-24 08:03:04, 404 Not Found

--

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=27288878_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=20
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:47:55, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-24 08:03:28, 404 Not Found

--

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=110393927_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=10
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:47:55, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-24 08:03:41, 404 Not Found

--

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=110975753_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=0
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:47:55, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-24 08:03:50, 404 Not Found

--

• http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/hurrclimate.php#1989
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:47:55, 404 Not Found
  • In 1989 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-24 08:04:03, 404 Not Found

--

Why was the season effects table moved back? I'd like to point out to you here that I mentioned the season effects table on how it should be in the season summary section along with ACE. I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason not to have it in the season summary section. The effects table summaries the main events in the season, and the season effects section has no other real content in it. Any thoughts on this?

I think it works better overall as a separate section, and not just added on to the end of the seasonal summary section which should be expanded out further before this topic is listed as a well developed one which is what Good Topics implies.Jason Rees (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the SS being expanded, but if you think about it, what does the season effects table cover?

^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The effects table is a summary table that provides, generally speaking, the most requested info in once place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a summary. And the seasonal summary section contains the most important info about activity, ect while the

^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes the seasonal summary section is a summary of the data, but i really think it works better if we have the seasonal effects graphs in a separate especially as they are quite bulky and would take up too much room in the seasonal summary section.Jason Rees (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could

^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Or we could make it slightly simpler by doing

^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The season summary should simply describe generally what happened in the season and effects. The table would fit perfectly there, after all, it IS a summary of the season. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that this section is required, as Tropical Depression 23E doesnt have enough to sustain a whole section and nor will some of the other tropical depressions when i have finished cleaning this article up.Jason Rees (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is a need for such section for post-1988 EPAC TC's, and if it is, it should go in the season summary section IMO.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I strongly believe that there is a need as the seasonal summuary section is meant to describe conditions during the season and not individual TCs.

I think there should be an "other storms" section for all tropical depressions that did not affect land or cross into CPAC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about for modern seasons like 2012?

^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was talking about 1989. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it is a level 3 header, not a level 2 header or it goes in the season summary section. I think the cutoff for this should be 1990, when TD's got TCR's.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It was always going to be a level 3 header in the subsections of the storms section, as for a cut off we shouldnt have one. If the data can be better presented in an other storms section then we should have it in and not worry about an arbitrary cut off point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we will make it a writers decision more or less. If the writer feels that there is not enough content, then he/she should make such a section.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

and what if an editor disagrees with the writers choice? Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we have a discussion like we are now :P

^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My opinion is that for this season, and past seasons where TCRs were not issued for tropical depressions, a 3rd class header for "Other Storms" under the Storms level 2 header is the most appropriate option, since tropical depressions are storms and shouldn't be separated with a level 2 header. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record - i wasn't planning on separating them with a level 2 header.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did put a level 2 header right here.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

And then subsequently corrected it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the stuff on Winnie being used instead of Wallis be removed please? I am requesting this as the 1980 NHOP (pg 19), 1981 (pg 23), 1982 (pg 23), 1983 (pg 24), 1984 (pg 24), 1985 (pg 24), 1987 (pg 27), 1988 (pg 28), 1989 (pg 28) National Hurricane Operational Plans all list Winnie as the name to be used in 1983/1989 not Wallis.Jason Rees (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be done now.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I have just modified one external link on 1989 Pacific hurricane season. 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/20101206195446/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1989 Pacific hurricane season. 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/20130221101605/http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1989atcr.pdf to http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1989atcr.pdf

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.

• 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) 03:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]