Talk:Hurricane Gilma (1994)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Gilma (1994) 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.
Featured topic starHurricane Gilma (1994) is part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. It is also part of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 23, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
November 7, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
November 7, 2008Good topic removal candidateKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 27, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 1994's Hurricane Gilma is the most intense Pacific hurricane to occur in July?
Current status: Good article

Todo[edit]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994/gilma/tropdisc/ - use the discussions (plus other stuff from the NHC archive). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Gilma (1994)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Keep an eye on your prose tense. In the first sentence of the "Storm history" section you use present tense: "lies with", but then in the next sentence switch to past tense: "consolidated". Same thing in the second section where you switch between "Gilma is" and "Gilma was"
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The last sentence of the "Forecasting, impact and records" section could use a ref. Also, is there any reason why the pressure was not provided?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Any information on whether the name was retired or not?
  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:

Overall, a well-written article. I am putting it on hold to allow you time to address the few minor points above. If you have any questions, you can ask here on the review page, or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, the storm history section needs to be expanded substantially with the advisories before it can pass. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errr..sure, what he said *grin*. I'm not a hurricane expert, so I didn't realize there was anything more to be added. What Julian says goes in this case, I suppose :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would have been fine; I'm just overly strict. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Gilma wasn't retired, it was used in 00 and 06, but a source in the Kenneth article (05) shows that Gilma was PROPOSED for retirement by Hawaiian officials. http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc07/web-61st-IHC-Booklet.pdf Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added info about retirememt, references to the problematic sentences, and a few advisories are used as references. The article is mainly past tense. The exception (the records paragraph) is in present tense because Gilma continues to hold those records; using past tense there implies that it one held those records but no longer does. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I've made a few copyediting tweaks, feel free to revert them if you don't like them - mainly picky stuff. Good work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT[edit]

Gilma's central pressure of 920 mbar (hPa; 27.17 inHg) is the seventh lowest ever recorded or estimated in a Pacific hurricane and the lowest ever in July.[1] Gilma is also the fifth known Pacific hurricane to reach Category 5 intensity on record in the Central Pacific and the second of a record three such cyclones in the 1994 Pacific hurricane season (since equaled by the 2002 season).[1] Finally, Gilma is the strongest hurricane of its season. However, Gilma's lowest pressure record may be incomplete; the 920 millibar reading of pressure is at the first of four data points when Gilma was a Category 5 hurricane;[1] that report is at the edge of a range typical of a Category 5 hurricane.[2] The remaining data points do not provide pressure levels[1] because the source provided by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, and used by the National Hurricane Center for storm path and intensity data, does not generally provide pressure readings.[3][4]

Here's what was in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Eastern North Pacific Tracks File 1949-2008". National Hurricane Center. 2009. Retrieved January 3, 2010. [dead link]
  2. ^ Chris Landsea. "Subject: D1) How are Atlantic hurricanes ranked?". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved August 18, 2008.
  3. ^ Richard J. Pasch (January 20, 1995). "Preliminary Report Hurricane Gilma (Page 3)". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
  4. ^ Jim Gross (August 30, 1989). "Preliminary Report Hurricane Dalilia". National Hurricane Center. p. 3. Retrieved August 28, 2008.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Gilma (1994). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Gilma (1994)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Is there any more information? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Gilma (1994). 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Gilma_(1994)&oldid=1210964132"