Nominator(s): NoahTalk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have decided to nominate Carlotta after having worked on it for a long time. I actually tried to delete the article myself and it was on the cusp of being merged into the seasonal article. I rewrote Carlotta and added an impact section after finding out there was a decent bit of information on the storm. I now believe Carlotta is of sufficient quality to be brought here. NoahTalk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the descriptions were good enough. I added in things like "visible satellite image" for alt text in addition to the description of the image. NoahTalk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: This can't be done without changing EVERY track map. There really isn't a reason to make it any larger as the intensity dots are easily discernable even without clicking on the image for the full size. Yeah, some of the dots are smashed together, but that's what you get when a system slows down and stalls. Please let me know if you think this is a large enough issue that it warrants a change. NoahTalk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would every track map need to be changed in order to change this one? According to the documentation for ((storm path)), the functionality to change the image size is already part of the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Oh, I thought you meant the image itself needed to be zoomed in more. There is an issue though... the project doesn't scale up track maps unless the storm has a long track, such as that of Hurricane Hector (2018). Storms with short tracks do not get enlarged. Keep in mind that such a change would go against the current practice and would likely require some form of consensus or it would run the risk of being reverted. NoahTalk 22:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is more of a practice to cut down as much text squishing as possible. Nearly every article has the infobox on the right, and the map is in the top-left of the meteorological history. It's more a matter of style. That being said, there is one extra line at the very bottom of my screen, so if the map was a tiny bit bigger, the line wouldn't drop all the way to the left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As far as I am aware, there aren't any actual discussions on the matter. I asked a few people without any luck. It's just how it has been done (for the reason pointed out above). As it appears there is no official consensus, I have honored your request. Is everything good now regarding images? NoahTalk 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On June 12, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported that a broad area of low pressure had formed several hundred miles south of the aforementioned country. The NHC continued to track the disturbance over the next couple of days as it drifted northward. Following an increase in organization, the system was designated as a tropical depression on June 14 and was upgraded to tropical storm status the following evening. - too much MH for the lead. This can all be summarized into one sentence
Cut out any mention of TD in the lead. I have it as strengthening to TS by June 15. NoahTalk 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would mention how close to land Carlotta got in the lead, or maybe add that it stalled "just offshore" or something
mentioned closeness at peak intensity. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NHC continued to monitor the disturbance over the next couple days as it drifted northward.[3] Initially, strong upper-level winds prevented organization,[2] but by the next day, conditions had become marginally conducive - as my general rule of thumb, if the previous sentence doesn't mention a date, then don't refer to "the next day", since then the reader has to go back two sentences. Also, what were the conditions that became more conducive?
Added a date and corrected the statement. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The system thereafter increased in organization, resulting in the formation of a tropical depression by 18:00 UTC on June 14. - where?
Added place and distance. NoahTalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NHC later reduced its intensity forecast as the system's center had reformed further north, decreasing the amount of time until landfall. - the wording could be tighter here, like - After the system's center reformed farther north, the NHC anticipated only minimal intensification due to less time over water. That's not perfect either. It's odd, because you're talking about two different time frames here, the forecast, and what the storm did. Also, because it's distance/location related, it should be "farther", not "further".
Is that better? NoahTalk 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carlotta began to intensify around 06:00 UTC as it stalled off the coast of Mexico. - wasn't it already intensifying once it became a TS?
Clarified as the intensity stalled for multiple times. NoahTalk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Around 18:00 UTC, Carlotta weakened into a tropical depression after lacking organized deep convection for several hours. - see what I said earlier about timing
I hope that clarifies the timing more. NoahTalk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On June 14 at 21:00 UTC, a tropical storm watch was issued for Tecpan de Galeana to Punta Maldonado [es]. - I'd say "The government of Mexico issued a tropical storm watch..." - this cuts down on the passive voice
There, a total of 170 families were affected and the DN-III-E Plan, a plan for the coordination of search and rescue operations and disaster aid, was activated to help with recovery efforts. - this seems like two different ideas. First, what does it mean that the families were affected? I don't usually include that in articles because it's a fairly open-ended stat that doesn't mean too much. Also, was this plan used for any search/rescue on the Yucatan?
removed the stat and replaced it with the police station that was inundated. I can't find any information on search and rescue operations. I have tried multiple searches with no success. I did find that the army was prepared to help if needed, but nothing available on whether they actually did help in Yucatan. NoahTalk 22:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you cut down in general on the passive voice in the impact section?
A total of 138 trees were downed; 120 in Acapulco and the remaining 18 in the municipalities of Cuajinicuilapa, Florencio Villareal, Azoyu, Tecpan de Galeana, Benito Juárez, Coyuca de Benítez, Eduardo Neri, and Coyuca de Catalán. - usually articles don't give a breakdown for towns where trees were downed. Seems kinda trivial IMO. I'd just keep the 138 downed trees
cut most of that. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, 11 roads collapsed, nine houses lost their roofs, 32 neighborhoods lost power, and a hospital sustained window damage in Acapulco. - was this all in Acapulco? Also, the ordering seems off. Mentioning collapsed roads in the same sentence as damaged windows seems off.
Should be fixed now. NoahTalk 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Approximately 210.6 mm (8.291 in) of rain fell in La Villita while 194.9 mm (7.673 in) was recorded in Presa La Villita. - watch for rounding. Also, is there any significance to these rainfall totals as opposed to the previous one mentioned (which was presumably the highest recorded in Mexico).
I have been told rainfall values must conform to sig fig conversion rules, which states a value with 4 sig figs must have a conversion to inches with 4 sig figs. No, there isn't a particular significance, although those three were only exact rainfall values throughout Mexico. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the Tiquicheo Municipality, 10 houses flooded after a river near the city of Tiquicheo overflowed its banks. - no need to mention Tiquicheo twice, IMO.
cut "of Tiquicheo" NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Throughout the storm, 35 temporary shelters were in operation. - nationwide? Or in Michoacan?
Added... please note I did not intend to leave that as open ended since it is in the Michoacán paragraph. NoahTalk 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A 30-to-35-year-old woman and a 15-to-17-year-old girl became entrapped in their vehicle due to rising flood waters - no need to mention the age range. How about just "Two women became trapped..."
Cut the ages. NoahTalk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's it for my review. The article is in decent shape, but just seems lacking for an FA (probably because the storm wasn't too damaging, therefore not too much to write about). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to Support now. It may be short, and not what I would've put on FAC, but I believe it passes the criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"and sea surface temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F)," - The rest of the MH uses imperial units first. Therefore, celsius should be in parenthesis. Because it's a template, you can just add |order=flip
Fixed... seems odd that NHC uses Celcius when they use imperial units for everything else. NoahTalk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Carlotta's remnants dissipated around 06:00 UTC.[1]" - Specify where the remnants dissipated
Added virtually the same thing that the TCR had since there was no specific location/distance. NoahTalk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The proximity of Carlotta prompted the closure of the ports of Huatulco, Puerto Ángel and Puerto Escondido" - Comma after Puerto Ángel
"In Puebla, a state highway and a bridge collapsed, cutting off several towns in the area." - At first I couldn't tell if you were referring to the city or the state because you end the sentence with "in the area". Upon further investigation, it looks like this was in the Tehuacán area. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The source used for this sentence also states that there were flooded businesses and homes, as well as stranded cars in Tehuacán area, which should be added to the article
I clarified... I was referring to the state with Puebla. I added info about the flooding as well as the cars and trees. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should be it. This is a pretty good article, but just a few things need to be done before I can support. Anyway, I'm glad you decided against withdrawing.--12george1 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@12george1: I should have addressed everything. If there are any problems, please let me know. NoahTalk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, I would say a withdraw is warranted. The article is simply too short to qualify for FA. I would like a second opinion on it before formally making a decision on this. NoahTalk 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I will see this through given the negative feedback regarding a withdraw. Maybe the sentiment has changed in more recent years. I had heard in great detail about opposition to smaller hurricane FACs. NoahTalk 21:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Before you withdraw, two questions: 1. Is this subject worthy of a stand-alone article? If not, withdraw and nominate for deletion. If it is worthy of a stand-alone article, 2. Does it incorporate every useful and worthwhile piece of encyclopaedic information, without going into trivia or too much details? If not, withdraw. If it passes both 1 and 2, don't withdraw. I know nothing about hurricanes, etc, but if this is a worthwhile article and is of sufficient standard that covers all appropriate material, then there is no reason it cannot be an FA (although I say this without reviewing the current version). We have shorter articles than this (I think some of Crisco's Indonesian lost-film articles were shorter, and they deserved to be FAs as much as this one may). If you decide to remain, ping me and I'll review the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking further, Panggilan Darah – 982 words and Air Mata Iboe – 948 words are both shorter than your 1214 words of "readable prose size". Because they were short Crisco ensured that every useful and encyclopaedic piece of information was included. If you have too, then there is no need to withdraw on size alone. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SchroCat: I have decided to continue on with the process. NoahTalk 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article within the next few days? NoahTalk 19:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name "Carlotta" appears 36 times in the article. A few of these could be replaced with "the storm" etc, as a bit of variety.
Changed some. I had 4 in the lede and about 10 in the prose. NoahTalk 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a habit of adding an introductory word at the beginning of each sentence (Additionally, However, Moreover, Soon after, Meanwhile, etc). Try and remove those if they are not actually needed. They make the reading less fluid that it could be (and it looks like an added in sentence of something forgotten – 'oh, and another thing…')
Changed as possible. Meanwhile and soon after are mainly there as we only have 6 hour track points. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have "Additionally" seven times in the article, which makes for awkward reading. Most of them could be removed, or the sentences tweaked slightly to make the reading a bit more fluid
Removed all but one. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"due to" always jars slightly (although that may just be a personal thing), so consider whether "because of" would be better
Replaced all of them. NoahTalk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lead & IB
Fatalities: "3 total": do we need "total"?
Yes, it is needed because there are both direct and indirect deaths. This is done for almost every storm. NoahTalk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that field in the IB makes no distinction. It just supplies the number of deaths and the "in total" is inherent in the field, which is three - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We always clarify... either list “# total”, “# direct, # indirect”, or “# direct/indirect (whichever it happens to be)”. NoahTalk 16:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We" being? A project, I presume? The benefit of not being part of a project is that I approach it like a reader (which is exactly what you need). This looks wrong and the two words raise more questions than answers. An IB should give simple points that clarify, not complicate matters. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did clarify on the deaths since such information exists, but I will not go against project practices as this would require a consensus to change. NoahTalk 21:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the aforementioned country" feels a bit forced. "Central America" or something else would work better
Removed Mexico from the first sentence and replaced the aforementioned country with Mexico. NoahTalk 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The storm caused a total of three deaths": "a total of" is not needed. This should be followed by a colon, not a semi solon
Fixed... oops typo... 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
"Additionally, the storm caused": "Additionally" not needed
"the National Hurricane Center": As we're talking about a storm over Mexico and the previous mention of a country was Mexico, it may be worth clarifying to "the US National Hurricane Center"
Added "Miami-based" NoahTalk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the NHC forecast that" -> "the NHC forecasted that"
Although both are correct, everyone uses forecast. NoahTalk 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an AmEng speaker, but shouldn't "cancelled" be "canceled"? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance!
English is weird... both spellings are correct, but appears canceled seems to be preferred (at least by rule books, not neccesarily by actual people). I always used cancelled due to cancellation. NoahTalk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"fishing operations.[25] Additionally, multiple": use a semi-colon instead of a full stop and drop "Additionally"
@SchroCat: I addressed all the items you presented. I saw someone else did make some changes, so please let me know if I need to make any additional corrections. NoahTalk 12:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One final point on something added since my review. In the second para of "Preparations", you have the line "The cyclone caused two deaths in Aguascalientes and one in Oaxaca". This isn't needed and should be taken out - you have the details in the next para and the final one, and this sentence makes it look like there were three more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm glad you decided to keep on with this article. It's a good one that fulfils the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
General: So far as I can judge, the sources are appropriate to the subject. I note that the first 21 references are all to National Hurricane Center reports, the remainder are all to Spanish sources for which I am unable to properly assess the quality/reliability. The publisher of ref 22 appears to be Comisión Nacional Del Agua, not "gob.mx", and the source is a map rather than a report. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the issue with it having the map as a "report". The reference has Conagua listed as the publisher and website as gob.mx. NoahTalk 12:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mention "favorable environment" in the lead, but never mention "favorable" again in the MH
That was an oversight... I said "an environment" but meant to say "a favorable environment"
Over the next twelve hours, Carlotta experienced [...] south-southeast of Acapulco. I feel like there should be a comma somewhere
Added a comma after the non-essential part. NoahTalk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Tizimín, the Popolnáh police station - ref says Tizimín Municipality, not the city which the link currently leads to
Alright... Guess I put the main city in the municipality rather than the municipality itself. NoahTalk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prompted the closure of the ports of Huatulco, Puerto Ángel, and Puerto Escondido and the suspension of fishing operations - change second "and" to "as well as"