Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016.

Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia

 * Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Patricia of October 2015 was one of the most intense hurricanes we've ever seen. On October 23, Hurricane Hunters observed record-shattering winds and one of the lowest sea-level pressures in the world. The storm packed maximum sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h), a value equivalent to an EF5 tornado. Thankfully, Patricia weakened as dramatically as it intensified as it made landfall in a sparsely populated area of Western Mexico, preventing a worst-case scenario catastrophe. Meteorologically speaking, Patricia was an incredible storm that will be the subject of journal articles for years to come.

With a plethora of information covering its origins, mind-boggling intensification, subsequent dissipation, and numerous broken records, this special sub-article was warranted. Accordingly, this article is more jargon-heavy than most tropical cyclone articles but I've done my best to explain any of the more difficult concepts. Hopefully you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it and thank you in advance for your comments/criticism! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Support by Jason Rees
 * Additional raw data from this station indicated unrealistically high sustained winds of 266.04 mph (428.15 km/h) and a maximum gust of 1,137.89 mph (1,831.26 km/h) - Do we really need to go to two decimal places here?
 * Removed decimal places. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the following 12 hours, a well-defined 12 mi (19 km) wide eye formed within a ring of intense convection—with cloud tops of −80 to −90 °C (−112 to −130 °F)—forming "an almost perfectly symmetric [central dense overcast]" - So many lines.
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 957 mbar (hPa; 28.26 inHg) - I know mbar is the same as hPa but do we really need to be noting the mbar?
 * Thought it was worth including for context since it's from a recon observation rather than estimated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also thought I heard that Patricia has a 100 kt forecast error somewhere.
 * Probably form me on the FB chat group :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The HURDAT templates need tweaking to update the links, but i will do that.
 * "And coalesced into a Central American gyre[3]—a broad monsoonal circulation." - Would it be better to say and coalesced into a broad central american monsoon gyre?
 * The term given to the feature by Bosart, Papin, et al. is "Central American gyre" so that's what I'm working with. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you not just say Atmospheric convection rather than going convection
 * Convection is simpler ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A strong pulse in the Madden–Julian oscillation—a propagating mode of intraseasonal variability that traverses the globe and is associated with increased tropical cyclogenesis — may have aided in creating favorable conditions for further development. - I think it would be easier if you didnt define what the MJO is here but instead just link it back.
 * I think having the basics of why it's important to Patricia's development is worthwhile to the reader. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats fair enough but I think you may have been too technical here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been looking through this article at times over the last 7 days and I feel that it meets the criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. Having reviewed it for GAN, I can attest that the article meets all of the featured article criteria. It is a very detailed, technical article for one of the most important hurricanes of all time. Since my review, Cyclonebiskit added more useful information, solidifying my support. For any interested onlookers, other similar featured articles include Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * "the National Hurricane Center (NHC) saw record-high prediction errors." Made errors itself or observed errors by others? (It seems both from the details below. I do not like the vague "saw" and would either make this clear or delete the specific mention of the NHC.).
 * " Interaction with the mountainous terrain of Mexico induced dramatic weakening, faster than the storm intensified." I think "faster than the storm had intensified" would be clearer.
 * "set by Typhoon Tip in 1979 but no concrete determination of such can be made" - sounds a bit clumsy.
 * The article looks good to me, although - as the nominator warned - it is too technical for me to be able to judge it properly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Made some adjustments to the above sentences. Hopefully they work better now. Thanks for taking a look at this, ! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - lots of good research here, utilizing a variety of sources beyond the conventional assemblage of NHC discussions. Plenty of quality illustrations, ample wikilinks, and short but clear in-text explanations make it nearly as accessible as could be expected of such a technical article. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think everything is covered now. Just a courtesy ping since it's been more than a week :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Image and source review by Wugapodes
 * Support Comment Sources are consistently formatted and refer to reliable sources. All good there I think. All images are appropriately licensed, however they lack alt text which is important for accessibility. Once alt text is added I will support. Other than that they images and sources are all in line with the MOS. Also, I am a participant in the Wikicup as is Cyclonebiskit Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the alt text to all images as requested. Some of them are easily covered by the provided captions so I've just added "alt=Refer to caption" for those. Thanks for the image and source review! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Supported. A small thing is that I think there are a few where you used a template or wikilink in the alt text. I believe that alt text doesn't support markup, so that should be fixed, but it's not enough to hold this up over. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.