Talk:Hurricane Rosa (2018)

Hurricane Rosa (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 Rosa (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 10, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
June 5, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 24, 2019	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 10, 2021	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific / 2018 FT TF Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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.
	Tropical cyclones portal 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 is supported by the 2018 Featured Topic task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Infobox image

Should we use [1] or [2] for Rosa's image? There is a dispute going on about which one should be in the infobox. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the colored IR image (2) over the B/W overnight visible image. (1). There seems to be a stigma against IR imagery, which results in these kinds of things happening. In this case however it is better to use a colored image, even if it is an IR image. Cooper 22:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I normally prefer a colored, visible satellite image, it seems that for this storm, we don't have a picture with all the best aspects. In this case, I think that the current visible, nighttime image would be best, since it is a detailed image that does a great job of depicting the storm at peak intensity. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The colored IR looks much more natural than the nighttime image. There isn't anything wrong with having an IR image on an article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've been using nighttime or black and white images for a while, especially on the articles for the older storms. The nighttime image looks more natural to me (just a black and white version of what I would expect if the storm was viewed under moonlight), and the details of the storm are much more defined and visible than they are in the IR image. Visible imagery is normally more natural in appearance than IR and radar images. For me, the color is the only downside, but the quality and details in the nighttime image are still preferable when compared to the IR image. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the visual, I would prefer the black and white as it looks more natural than a colored one. It peaked at nighttime and should be black and white as such. A colored visual gives the impression it peaked during the day which is not true. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Rosa (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6. The wave moved over the tropical Atlantic during the next couple of weeks, before entering the Pacific Ocean and developing into a broad area of low pressure on September 22." considering how little this has to do with the storm itself, why is it in the lead? I'd start off by mentioning when the NHC first started monitoring it personally. Also, why are major geographical locations linked like Africa and the Pacific Ocean? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Rosa originated from a broad area of low pressure that the National Hurricane Center began monitoring on September 22" Noah^Talk 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

", becoming a major hurricane late that day." "major hurricane" is jargon to the lyman. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "On September 27, Rosa began a period of rapid intensification, ultimately peaking as a Category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 936 mbar (27.64 inHg) on the next day." (I will fix the next sentence once I get to it) Noah^Talk 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"By the next day, Rosa had weakened into a Category 2 hurricane due to ongoing structural changes and less favorable conditions. Later on September 29, Rosa re-intensified slightly. On September 30, Rosa resumed weakening, falling to Category 1 status as its core structure eroded. Early on October 1, Rosa weakened into a tropical storm." why mention so many categorical changes? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the C1 mention and fixed the first part of the sentence (in relation to change I made for above issue). Noah^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention anything about storm motion in the lead. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed... Mentioned that it turned towards the northeast over a couple of days. The initial motion of W to WNW was already mentioned. Noah^Talk 02:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and made landfall in Baja California" link landfall (meteorology) and delink Baja California (already linked above). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is fixed. Noah^Talk 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Later in the day, Rosa's remnants crossed into the Gulf of California. Rosa's surface and mid-level remnants later separated entirely." could you combine both sentences? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Noah^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosa caused significant flooding throughout Northwestern Mexico." "Northwestern Mexico" isn't a proper noun. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Noah^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6." why is Africa linked? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delinked. Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 22, a broad area of low pressure formed approximately 200 miles south of Mexico.[4] " where is the unit conversion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added conversion. Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 19, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) issued their first forecast, anticipating that an area of low pressure would form a few hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec over the weekend." First forecast ever? Also, why isn't the NHC linked? Please make sure you link everything once in the entire article or do it on first instance in both the lead and the body. But be consistent. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "On September 19, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring the wave for tropical development..." Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosa's intensity leveled off for about eighteen hours. Rosa then resumed strengthening, reaching Category 2 status on September 27 at 12:00 UTC, and major hurricane status six hours later.[2] " mind combining these 2 sentences? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I combined them. Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Shortly after, the NHC stated that Rosa's eye had warmed to 16 °C (61 °F)" just as an FYI, I'd avoid mentioning eye temperature in articles, at least without content, since it can be misleading. Satellites aren't great compared to Recon at estimating the warmest part of the eye, though they've gotten better over the years. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the specific temp. to considerably. Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is kind of choppy in the MH so I did some copyediting FWIW as it's hard to point out to anything specific,but I will say you need to balance your sentence structure more. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that. I will try to avoid being choppy on future articles. Noah^Talk 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did the storm's motion change after weakening to a TS?
Sorry about that. After the sentence about Rosa weakening to TS, I added "Shortly after, Rosa began travelling towards the northeast." Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, due to wind shear and interaction with land." we know about both of those factors already. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the factors and combined with the following sentence. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" 60 nautical miles southeast" why are we using nautical miles lol? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 70 mi (115 km). Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" From that point forward, The Weather Prediction Center (WPC) began issuing storm summaries on Rosa as it remained a major flood threat." comebine this with a previous sentence and axe everything after "Rosa". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Combined + changed Rosa to "the system" since the name was already mentioned in the previous sentence. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Weather Prediction Center (WPC)" why capitalization? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the capital "the". Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"On October 3, the remnants of Rosa were absorbed into a developing upper-level low off the coast of California, and the WPC issued their last advisory on Rosa's remnants.[20]" just change the last bit to "the system" as its weird having remnants twice in a sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"n September 29, the Government of Mexico issued a tropical storm watch for the Pacific Coast of the Baja California peninsula from Punta Abreojos to Cabo San Quintin.[21]" link to TC watches and warnings. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
linked the the west hemisphere section on said page. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"3.94 inches (100 mm) of rain fell" why is inches spelled out? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviated. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"By the final storm summary on October 3," the lyman does not know what the means. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply changed that to 09:00 UTC on Oct 3. Noah^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The National Weather Service issued a flash flood warning for the Phoenix area, as Rosa drenched the city with up to 2 inches of rainfall reported on October 2, making it one of the wettest days in the city's history. Firefighters also rescued several people from their flooded vehicles.[30]" no unit conversion, "one of" is IIRC one of MOS:WTW, and your probably better off reversing the order of the sentence to mentioing the rain resulted in flash flood warnings and rescues. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"On October 3, a 26-year-old French woman was killed after crossing the collapsed section of US 89, north of Cameron. Once the woman crossed the collapsed portion of the highway, she exited her vehicle to inspect for damages. She was then struck and killed by a Toyota pickup that was travelling north." this reads like it was copied directly from a news article. Just mention how she died and where in 1 sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
changed. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep listing the state name in the US section but not in the MX one? Honestly the state name is unnecessary. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any US impact outside Arizona? Look through local western newspapers and WFO's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, there is little I can verify as actually being associated with Rosa right now due to another system being in the area and absorbing Rosa on October 3 (which was the date it began impacting other areas). Will have to wait for storm data to be published.
1 2 3 4. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at those when I have time this weekend. Noah^Talk 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im taking a look at some storm reports (will make those edits on Sunday morning). The only states that have storm reports related to Rosa are California and Arizona. I can add more details to their impacts, but other states have no impacts associated with Rosa. Noah^Talk 03:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other then areas that were already mentioned, I found one incident in Nevada. I checked the storm event reports for all states in the vicinity. Most storm event reports were for the other system that was in area or after the aforementioned system absorbed Rosa. I think that the US impact section is as complete as it will get. Noah^Talk 16:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't references dated? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am fixing now Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the quote outside of ref 29? This isn't DYK. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes that were attached to references have been removed. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same with ref 31. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes that were attached to references have been removed. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is AccuWeather listed twice on ref 30? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the publisher reference. Noah^Talk 03:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly my main impression is that it reminds me a lot of my older articles, like the ones around 2010. Not enough care was taken place to make sure there were no goofs, with a heavy reliance of content not fully done by the nominator. But considering you've been in WPTC for like 6 months now, it could be worse, andmost oof the problems here can be easily fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]