Talk:Hurricane Madeline (1976)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Madeline (1976) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Madeline caused major damage to Mexico in 1976?

Untitled[edit]

All in all, not bad, but something's weird in the Met. history. It reads as if it strengthened from Cat. 3 to Cat. 4 over land, but the best track clearly has it as a Cat. 4 offshore. Please fix it. Also, is there any impact from non-newspaper sources? For example, Spanish government sources, something about a climatology of Mexican hurricanes. It's a bit lacking, but it's in decent shape. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the MH. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Not really. It's totally unofficial that it made two landfalls in Mexico. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there is the first search I get for Google Spanish.Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

HH, I have fixed the MH again. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Madeline (1976)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly, but I just wanted to set up the review page now. Canadian Paul 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Some comments:

  1. The picture in the infobox requires a caption.
  2. Reference #6 is no longer working.
  3. Under "Meteorological history", first paragraph, "By the morning of September 29, the disturbance was upgraded to a 40 mph (65 km/h) tropical storm and named as Madeline based on ship reports and satellite imagery." - The way this is phrased, it makes it seem like the storm was named "Madeline" because of those reports.
    Thats quite correct.Jason Rees (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The language in this section needs to be more precise. "During the next couple of days", "over the next day or two" etc. is not particularly encyclopedic in tone and does not help the reader gain a clear understanding of the storm's progression. If something is not know with sufficient certainty, then you can state "on either Monday or Tuesday..." (as a random example) or whatever.
  5. Same section, second paragraph "Despite the upgrade, the aircraft reported winds 70 mph (120 km/h) winds and a pressure of 984 millibars." - This reads as if the hurricane's winds acted against the will of the upgrade. I assume that the idea is something along the lines of "The storm was upgraded despite the fact that the aircraft reported...", which needs to be made clearer.
  6. Same section, third paragraph "before early on October 8" is not proper English.
  7. Under "Preparations and impact", first paragraph - "Army headquarters put in effect..." per WP:OBVIOUS, which army? Can it be wikilinked?
  8. Same paragraph, it is written "According to newspapers, evacuations prior to Madeline were considered a success", but then only one newspaper is cited. Perhaps "According to at least one report" would be more accurate, unless others claim the same.
  9. Same section, second paragraph - "Damage from the hurricane was severe." - Is this your opinion or something from the source (PDFs tend to crash my browser, so I couldn't check)? If it's something from the source, it should be written as "Damage from the hurricane was considered severe". If not, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, let the facts describe themselves and let the reader decide if it was severe or not.
  10. This paragraph is overall very choppy. It's basically a bunch of very short facts one after the other. Perhaps combining or reworking some of these sentences would help, as right now it's difficult to read.

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 04:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the issues except 4 and 7. In 4, the day off the week is not mention in the season summary. In 7, the army is not known. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Regarding #4, the point was more that the language used here is imprecise and unencyclopedic in tone; using the days of the week to specify was only an example. And even if it is justified (maybe the precise timeline is unknown?), you use the exact same phrase twice in quick succession.
Moving to the lead, there's two problems: "The system remained weak for several days as it drifted west-northwest for several days." - at least one of those "for several days" is redundant. Also, it is written "This made Madeline the second most intense hurricane to strike the west coast of Mexico on record", but this fact is not mentioned in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction must not introduce information that is not cited within the body of the article. Canadian Paul 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all the above issues. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Good! I believe that this article now satisfied the Good Article criteria, and therefore I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 22:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Madeline?[edit]

Pacific hurricanes with a wind speed of 140 mph (220 km/h) or higher at landfall
Hurricane Season Wind speed Ref.
Otis 2023 160 mph (260 km/h) [1]
Patricia 2015 150 mph (240 km/h) [2]
Madeline 1976 145 mph (230 km/h) [3]
Iniki 1992 [4]
Twelve 1957 140 mph (220 km/h) [5]
"Mexico" 1959 [5]
Kenna 2002 [6]
Lidia 2023 [7]

Madeline made landfall with winds of 145 mph and 940 mbars in pressure, so why isn't she on this list as #1? I'm not sure if this was forgotten about, but still, where is she here? Rye998 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - i will add it in unless their are any objections within say 48 hours.Jason Rees (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more question about this list. It doesn't really pertain to Madeline, but should the 1959 Mexico Hurricane be abriviated "Mexico" instead of unnamed on this list? I believe it is a better way of addressing that storm, and the 1943 Mazatlán hurricane, another "unnamed" hurricane is abbriviated "Mazatlán" instead of unnamed on the deadliest Pacific hurricanes list. Rye998 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. YE Tropical Cyclone Its my b'day 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, it appears no one is against this change, should it be added in now?Rye998 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be added. There are no known measurements of pressure when the storm made landfall. The closest reading was made roughly 9-10 hours before landfall, resulting in a fairly large window of opportunity for the pressure to fluctuate. Since there is no solid evidence of a pressure, inferring one for the time it made landfall borders on WP:OR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...So Madeline can't be added to this list because there could be a possible inacurracy for the pressure, or it might have not hit with 941 mbars? Truth is, Madeline's 941 mbar pressure was measured when it was a 135 mph storm; there is no reading when it was a 145 mph storm at its landfall. This means Madeline could have been lower than 941 at its landfall This is the exact same thing with other storms like 1994's John. It had winds of 175 mph, higher than Gilma or Ioke, but only 929 mbars in pressure. However, since that 929 mbar reading was only measured when it was a 160 mph storm, it may have been stronger than Gilma and Ioke, but until that is confirmed, if it ever will be, John is considered "weaker" than both storms. There might be reanalysis done on Madeline in the future to prove it was the most intense East Pacific landfall, just like the hurricane reanalysis project is trying to confirm the 1932 Cuba storm was a category 5 based on its Lone 915 mbar pressure. All in all, I believe Madeline was the strongest landfall in terms of pressure, but I also agree with you, Cyclonebiskit, it's against WP:OR to assume that. If I can find a valid source proving Madeline was the strongest, I will mention it here.Rye998 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I also think Madeline was a cat 5. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really think that, YE, I think Madeline was the strongest EPac landfall on record. Unless, you meant the 1932 storm. Rye998 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Brown, Daniel; Kelly, Larry (October 25, 2023). Hurricane Otis Tropical Cyclone Update (Report). Miami, Florida. Retrieved October 24, 2023.
  2. ^ Kimberlain, Todd B.; Blake, Eric S.; Cangialosi, John P. (February 1, 2016). Hurricane Patricia (PDF) (Report). Tropical Cyclone Report. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved February 4, 2016.
  3. ^ Gunther, Emil B. (April 1977). "Eastern North Pacific Tropical Cyclones of 1976". Monthly Weather Review. 105 (4). Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center: 508–522. Bibcode:1977MWRv..105..508G. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1977)105<0508:EPTCO>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved October 11, 2011.
  4. ^ The 1992 Central Pacific Tropical Cyclone Season (PDF) (Report). Honolulu, Hawaii: Central Pacific Hurricane Center. 1993. Retrieved November 24, 2003.
  5. ^ a b Blake, Eric S; Gibney, Ethan J; Brown, Daniel P; Mainelli, Michelle; Franklin, James L; Kimberlain, Todd B; Hammer, Gregory R (2009). Tropical Cyclones of the Eastern North Pacific Basin, 1949-2006 (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2024. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
  6. ^ Franklin, James L. (December 26, 2002). Hurricane Kenna (PDF) (Report). Tropical Cyclone Report. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved October 11, 2011.
  7. ^ Bucci, Lisa; Brown, Daniel (October 10, 2023). Hurricane Lidia Intermediate Advisory Number 31A (Report). Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved October 11, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Madeline_(1976)&oldid=1211228078"