Talk:Tropical Storm Lidia (1981)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You should get a pic for the Infobox
 * I've added an image. &mdash; Iune  (talk)  21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ I changed it to a"frontal boundary" so, I suppose this is ✅
 * Where exactly did the depression form? A mileage to the nearest city would be more useful than "almost due south"
 * Ehh, my bigger issue is "almost due south". I'd rather see a mileage to the Baja Peninsula than to Socorro Island, since people are more likely to have heard of the former. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " Ahead of a southwesterly flow over Mexico and front," - that wording is quite awkward. Is "front" not supposed to have "a" "the" "cold" before it?
 * No, it's not done, the wording is still awkward. "ahead of a flow and front" is what it essentially says. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ahead of a southwesterly flow over Mexico[1] and a front." - that isn't a sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I intended to put a comma there instead of a period. fixed.

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Also, little semantics issue, but how can it turn north-northeast if (per the track map) it was moving north-northeast after it first formed?
 * But now you say "moved to the north-northeast" in one sentence then "turned to the north" in the following sentence (and then "continued heading north" in the next). That's a few too many directional statements, IMO. Why can't you just say "Ahead of a front and a southwesterly flow over Mexico, it moved generally northward." That way you don't have to describe the minor turn to the north. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it turn to the north if you never indicate its initial movement? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * "turned to the north and intensified into a tropical storm, and was named Lidia" - too many "and"s
 * "at 000 UTC time Ocotber 7" - spot the two mistakes?
 * You really shouldn't say when things aren't done. There is still a typo. Also, don't forget to link UTC. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The wind speed in the MH prose is inconsistent with the Infobox
 * "Despite encountering 81 °F (27 °C) water, Lidia slowly weakened as it moved towards southern Baja California." - the info about the water temperature doesn't mean anything to the outside reader. Is that warm/cold? Favorable/unfavorable?
 * No, not done, because there still isn't any context to the outside reader. What does "Despite encountering warm sea surface temperatures of 81 °F (27 °C)" mean to the non-hurricane reader? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed that
 * No, the wording still doesn't say anything about why the warm waters means anything. And BTW, when you link Baja California, I don't think that's the area that you're talking about. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworded again.
 * I changed it to how it should read. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Found the typo, the MWR did not mention its exact landfall location.
 * "The tropcial cyclone passed over the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula on 1700 UTC October 7" - spot the typo? Also, an exact landfall location would be good.
 * You can use the best track, find the closest city it passed to. That would be more useful than what's there now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the Longitude/Latitude Calculator.
 * "; at the time of the landfall Lidia was located about 67 mi (108 km)" - what does that mean?! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, fixed. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ I could not find any. ✅ ✅ I split it up, and tried to organize it. ✅ Since Lidia occurred before the internet age, I never checked for Spanish sources until you asked. As expected, I did not find any info related to the storm.
 * "Two hours later, Lidia crossed the Gulf of California" - so it crossed the Gulf within two hours?
 * No, not done. It still reads that the storm crossed the GoC in two hours. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworded. It crossed Baja into two hours, not the gulf of California.
 * How strong was it at Lidia's second landfall?
 * "crossing over Mexico, Texas, and into the Southern United States, ultimately causing a frontal wave." - two things. First, isn't "crossing over Texas and into the Southern United States" redundant? Texas is part of the south. And, what does "cause a frontal wave" mean?
 * Are you sure that the storm caused the formation of a front? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sure.
 * Well, that's not what the source says. And tropical cyclones don't generate fronts that easily. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. According to the source, it spurred a frontal wave. I reworded it. YE  Tropical   Cyclone
 * Were there any preparations?
 * When you mean "heavy rainfall in Mexico", you should mention the peak rainfall there too. That keeps the info nice and organized.
 * "Tropical Storm Lidia caused Flash flooding" - do you see the issue now? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Flash flooding sent water down a dry river bed in Pericos. That flood killed forty people, mostly children" - is there any way you can combine the two short sentences?
 * I'm not a huge fan of the "and thus killed forth people" --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph in impact is rather long. Any chance of splitting it? It seems rather disorganized at the moment. There is a listing of deaths at every location, with some random damage interspersed
 * You should inflate the damage total
 * Actually, the current wording is pretty awkward. "and caused at least $80 million (1981 USD) or $193 million (2010 USD) in damage." - that sounds like there are two possible damage totals. It doesn't indicate that the 2010 total is just the 1981 total inflated. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Have you tried searching for more info in Spanish sources? The info seems a bit light right now for such a deadly storm.
 * Well, that's a shame because I found some links that could be useful for the article.  for example. However, I didn't find anything substantial, so I won't hold the article back on comprehensiveness grounds. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it on hold for now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a previous version that I wrote before YE got to it. Would reverting to that version and making the necessary wikifications improve the prose? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do like the organization a little more (sans the mention of retirement/future names, which is unnecessary, as well as having split impact/aftermath, which isn't really needed). Yours has a bunch of paragraphs in the impact, which probably should be combined. The writing certainly is better, although some of the issues I brought up still apply to yours. Is the content any different? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is more or less the same. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While the article isn't perfect, I'd say it's good enough, so I'll pass the article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
In the lead, this first statement is innaccurate per reference number 1: "Tropical Storm Lidia was the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclone of the 1981 Pacific hurricane season." According to that pdf, casualty and dmg estimates were not recorded for a number of tropical cyclones that season. I'd suggest a minor rewording of that statement, to avoid a possible WP:OR leaning. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about deleting your comment. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob :) Just want to be sure this is addressed, so the article's pending GA status will not have any points of contention after the fact. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this has been fixed, it states in the pdf that there has been more causalities than Norma.