Talk:Hurricane Alex (2010)

Preparations

typing from an iPhone sorry if this comes out messy, however the Houston Chronicle just released an article about preparations. I can't provide the link because my phone is lame but it talks about Tex. Gov Perry declaring states of emergency for 19 counties and other very wiki information. Keep up the good work ... Altarboy420 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC) ... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7085151.html Altarboy420 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning, thanks. Official source: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/14811/ --Nickm93 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to update the hurricane and tropical storm warnings in the article? Altarboy420 (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. I welcome someone re-wording or doing whatever to what I wrote as long as the information stays in the article Altarboy420 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to article 17,000 evacuated from Mexican coast. Good info for article? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/01/2942523.htm. Altarboy420 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pressure Reading

A Mexican Weather Station picked up a pressure reading of ~992mb while Alex made landfall, see this link, should this be mentioned in the article? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Then again maybe not, something seems off about it, notice how at the beginning of the day the pressure was 998mb even when the TC wasn't close. Nevermind it appears to be bad data. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Alex made a direct hit on Cayos Arcas

• AL, 01, 2010062812, , BEST, 0, 201N, 916W, 50, 989, TS, 34, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60, 1006, 250, 20, 60, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, ALEX, D, 12, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60
• AL, 01, 2010062812, , BEST, 0, 201N, 916W, 50, 989, TS, 50, NEQ, 25, 0, 0, 0, 1006, 250, 20, 60, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, ALEX, D, 12, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60

According to the current track data Alex made a direct hit on the island chain of Cayos Arcas today, it appears the Center of Circulation passed within about two miles of the island chain located at 20.21'N 91.98'W per this. I naddition per the 4:00 CDT advisory (Advisory 13) a Mexican Naval station on the island reported a pressure of 992mb. Should this data be added to the article, or the tohe table on the season page? -Marcusmax(speak) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As the island is uninhabited according to its article, no, it shouldn't, unless there's a good reason to do so. Alex made a direct hit on many islands before making landfall near Belize City, and adding all of them is not needed in my opinion. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong, but this island thus far is the only is the only one that has an official weather observation station, which means that a direct hit can be confirmed, while the islands near Belize can't really be confirmed as direct hits other then using track data. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the Cayos Arcas are also an important oil port per this Reuters article, "The ports of Dos Bocas and Cayo Arcas, which handle 80 percent of Mexico's oil export shipping in the Gulf, have been closed since Sunday due to strong surf in the area." -Marcusmax(speak) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovering this, I say include it. The closing of important rigs may be the "good reason" to mention an uninhabited island in the article. Nickm93 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I used to write articles on hurricanes here under a different user name several years ago and it was pretty much standard S.O.P. to include any and all directly hit islands, counties, cities etc... You want to give someone as much information as possible on the storm. I vote YES on the inclusion of directly hit islands into this article. Altarboy420 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the added information, then yes, it should be added. Also, for the Season Effects template, I found some other island landfalls/direct hits for Alex, however, via the RBT and advisory data. Here's to sum up all landfalls/direct hits so far: Great Blue Hole with 65 mph winds, Turneffe Islands with 65 mph winds, Drowned Cays with 60 mph winds, North of Belize City with 60 mph, and Cayos Arcas with 60 mph winds. Darren23^Edits|Mail 05:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention all of the direct hits. If anything, just the official landfalls, which the NHC will mention in its tropical cyclone report. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect most land-impacting TCs make several minor landfalls or direct hits on small islands which do not need a mention in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

BP Oil Spill

Currently, this is mentioned in both the Preparations and Impact sections. The mentions should be consolidated, into either section. Or, would having a section dedicated to potential impact on the oil spill be necessary? Nickm93 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i know the media are going mad about Alex and the Oil Spill it only really needs to be mentioned once in the impact section.Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Being the first TS of the season, it does alert people to the potential threat that could face the oil spill and operations there. However, the storm itself has stayed well away from the site. For that reason, I agree it should only have minimal mention here. Nickm93 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alex is a very large storm, absorbed cat. 3 Hurricane Darby

Hi. Should we take note of the size of the storm in the article, or should we wait until after the season ends to do so? The storm is, I would estimate, about 25 degrees wide in latitude and longitude including its outer bands. It already fills up almost the entire Gulf of Mexico. This is likely the result of Alex being the merger of an ICTZ wave and another wave, developing into a storm similar in style to a West Pacific typhoon. Also, Hurricane Darby started weakening when Alex developed into a depression, when it was already large enough to have an effect on the much stronger hurricane. Alex eventually reduced Darby to a depression and absorbed it. Should we mention this as well, and the fact that some spiral bands extend to the East Pacific? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't mention it until the NHC says something. No need for OR. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Early on June 30?

The lead mentions Alex becoming a hurricane early on June 30. While this is true for UTC, shouldn't we use the date for CDT (where the hurricane is)? Nickm93 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane articles always use UTC time. It might be confusing, but we strive for consistency. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Conditions

The Houston Chronicle seems to be doing the best job on covering the current conditions of Hurricane Alex. They have been rather detailed about sandbag issuance and some mandatory evacuations on South Padre Island that are not mentioned in the article. Just thought it might be helpful. Also the 1995 season saw 19 named storms and 11 hurricanes, an incredibly active season. Should that be mentioned in the article?Altarboy420 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38030564/ns/weather/. Is the second article I have read that mentions the two tornadoes in south Texas and that alex came ashore with 110 mph winds, disputing the 105 figure that is in the article. I know personal opinion is frowned upon here; but I believe that after the storm dissapates they will upgrade this storm to a cat 3. It's so well organized and THE PRESSURE!Altarboy420 (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in any case, the NHC is the official source, and we follow it, no matter what other news agencies say. That news source is probably erroneous. Also, please do not put comments not meant to improve the article. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Intensity

Alex is the first June hurricane since Allison in 1995, but it is also the strongest one since Audrey, the strongest ever, formed in 1957. Should this also be mentioned in the main article?98.206.70.2 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Alex is the strongest hurricane since Audrey in terms of pressure, but in terms of windspeed, it is not. However, because the Alex's pressure is lower than a normal Cat 1 storm , I don't know if it's wise to call it the strongest since Audrey using the pressure. Darren23^Edits|Mail 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alma's pressure was listed at 970 but incomplete, still it is likely it never got below 950. Still, Alma had higher winds. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It has 948 right now; it should be mentioned.98.206.70.2 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, on Alex's peak, it became the strongest non-major hurricane in the Atlantic, 105 mph and 947 mbars. I think this should be mentioned too.98.206.70.2 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting bit of information, but I'm unable to immediately verify it. If you could provide a source to back up that fact, it would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only non-major hurricane that is deeper than Alex that I can think of is Ike, in the TCR it said 100 mph 944 hPa. Darren23^Edits|Mail 13:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ike was a major hurricane, though, and I assume there are quite a few former-MHs that had lower pressures during their weakening stages. Juliancolton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have one source; it is http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/index.html. In here, if you look at the best track in the Atlantic basin (1851-2009), You can see past Atlantic storms and their pressures, and I can't find anything past Alex that was not a major hurricane.(I made a username)Rye998 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured... I've examined the best track more than a few times in search of various records, so it should be fairly easy to check this out. Juliancolton (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've used Unisys, too, but I don't think Alex was beaten; if it was, I don't know what storm was stronger. I think the closest runner-up(s) were Chloe of 1967 and Ginny of 1963, with 958 milibars each(as of what I know), but I could be wrong; there might be a few stronger storms than those two. Have you found any other storms that have beaten Alex, Julian? I haven't. I think this should be mentioned as a record now.Rye998 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

June or July landfall?

It looks like it'll make a landfall in June CDT, but in Greenwich time (UTC), it will be the morning of July 1st. How do you determine dates for landfall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.100.114 (talk)

We use UTC time for consistency. Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So, if we were to say that this was the strongest June hurricane to make landfall since so and so, we'd be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.100.114 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes unless it hits in the next hour. However, it is by pressure the second strongest June storm ever behind Audrey. Needs to get down to 945 mbar by 0000 UTC to break that. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Officially, Alex made landfall at around 0200 UTC on July 1, so I suggest we avoid any June-landfall records. Juliancolton (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Although not making landfall in June, it did develop in June and reached peak strength (arguably) in June. While we should avoid landfall records, it still made records while at sea. The definition of "June hurricane" may be taken (in my opinion) two ways: It developed in June, like Alex, or it made landfall in June. Calling Alex a July hurricane wouldn't make too much sense; a hybrid of June-developed, July-landfalling hurricane is needed (but less wordy?). Nickm93 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, a tropical cyclone is dated by the month it formed (so Alex is a "June hurricane"). I don't think it presents a huge issue personally; we just need to be careful to avoid potential inaccuracies. Juliancolton (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a later image?

There is a well defined eye as of now, and I believe that it should be shown, as the picture now is messy and Tropical Storm-ish. Old Al (Talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good choice, although the image dimensions are a bit difficult. Juliancolton (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I found a better image, and will upload it soon, but the dimensions will still pose a problem. Old Al (Talk) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Julian's image ... also in the article ... Current storm condition and current storm status do not matchAltarboy420 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an image...

I have a 3D image that I composed myself, where should I put it in the article? Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 04:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere is good at this point. There needs to be more images to break up the massive blocks of text. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have this

[[1]] is the image that I was talking about, but should it be for a landfall image in the page, the main image now, or the main image later? Old Al (Talk) 04:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a rule in WPTC that we should use visual images for the main image. However, you might be able to fit it somewhere in the article, but I just don't know where at this time. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but how do I resize it? Either way it would be to big. Old Al (Talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://johnzanussi.com/post/756340310/hurricane-alex-has-made-landfall-in-northeast. Cool pic but idk if it's useable or notAltarboy420 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's AVN coloring of IR imagery from wunderground on that site. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, resized. Old Al (Talk) 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Central America deaths

The Beeb says 12 deaths; has anyone found what the breakdown was? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With the 5 reported by Universal, and 4 reported by Milenio, that would bring us to 21. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

death toll from this storm has been extremely hard to meter. Absolutely none of the news agencies are reporting the same figures, which shows their inaccuracy. But given the remote locations of some of these flooded villages the toll is likey to go up today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.94 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

Can someone provide an inline citation for the death toll so this can get onto ITN? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a sum of several sources listed in the article, particularly in the impact section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, it's a combination of the 3 citations for the Dominican Republic death toll; the 3 citations for the Central America death toll; the 3 sources given for the Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero death tolls, and the 4 sources given for the Nuevo Leon death toll. Posting all 13 references in the lede would certainly go against the spirit of WP:LEDECITE, so I don't. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

i know its a blog but if required heres a source talking about 24 Deaths from alex.[2]Jason Rees (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eyewall replacement cycle

Hi. Hurricane Alex underwent an eyewall replacement cycle, normally occurring only in major hurricanes, while it was a category one and had the pressure of a category three. However, after completing this cycle, Alex began to go through a reverse eyewall replacement cycle by building new inner eyewalls that replaced its outer eyewall. I have a source, but it's Jeff Masters' blog so I'm not sure if it's reliable enough for this info. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be ok as long as you attribute it in the prose to Jeff Masters. We'll see what the NHC says in the TCR eventually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Extreme rainfall in Guerrero?

I'm grabbing the rainfall data from southern Mexico (in the last few days I can) from the SMN/CONAGUA website, and I'm finding some monumental totals in an area between 16 and 18.5 north latitude, and 98 and 100 degrees longitude, in the range of 40 and 110 inches (1-2.7 meters). Can someone with better knowledge of Spanish check out if there were numerous landslides in that state, or if these kinds of totals are substantiated elsewhere within their website? If this is true, the rains that fell in this state from Alex are nearly equal (in a 24 hour period) to the Wilma rainfall amounts in the Yucatan, and that Alex would have produced more rain than any other known tropical cyclone in Mexico. Thanks for whatever additional info you all can find. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There were 3 deaths in the state from the rainfall, but this makes me think that Alex's effect is indirect. In particular,

“ También en los estados sureños de Oaxaca y Guerrero se evacuó a cientos de personas por las inundaciones, pero el especialista en huracanes Eric Blake dijo que esas lluvias estaban indirectamente relacionadas con Alex y que posiblemente eran efectos residuales del huracán Darby, el cual se disipó en el Pacífico. ”

Which translates to:

“ Also, in the southern states of Oaxaca and Guerrero, hundreds of people were evacuated due to the floods, but Hurricane Specialist Eric Blake said that these rains were indirectly associated with Alex, and that possibly they were residual effects of Hurricane Darby, which dissipated in the Pacific Ocean. ”

I'll keep looking for rainfall amounts in the CONAGUA site. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Those sites in Guerrero look way too high...not just for Alex, but for the remainder of the month as well. Since Alex's circulation drew Darby inland, it would certainly count, even if people want to call it indirect. Darby was a "remnant low" at that point, right? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It strikes me as odd that CONAGUA made a press release about Alex's 890 mm in La Estanzuela, yet ignored a 2700 mm precipitation total. Also the press did not mention it at all, otherwise I would have run into it (since I was looking at news feeds 24/7 at the time). Something is off. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The SMN's Hurricane Summary (sweet reference!) mentions nothing about Guerrero... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Texas Situation Reports

There is a plethora of information available for Preps/Impact/Aftermath on the Texas Department of Public Safety website. They have 36 situation reports on the storm and the following floods along the Rio Grande. Although these reports are numerous, they don't last forever since the site does not keep an archive of these (AFAIK). The site it located at this link. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image in infobox?

Why isn't the other image of Alex put in the infobox? Someone changed it, but the other one looks better. Is this vandalism? Or does anyone else think it shouldn't be there? I like the other one because it looks better, even though Alex wasn't at it's peak when that image was taken. Does anyone else think it should be changed? I personally don't like it the way it is. Celia's image was when it was a 4, and the seperate peak intensity image is in the main article on that storm. Rye998 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be vandalism? WP:AGF and all…

That said, I changed it because the MODIS picture did look better than the grainy GOES pseudo-visible image. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am AGF, but every other storm in 2010 went by the picture like Alex when it was a category one, so it shouldn't be different with this storm. We go by what the quality of the picture is, not by whether or not it was stronger with a different picture, or we go by what we can find. Rye998 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is actually some sort of guideline about which image to use in infoboxes. That said, the edit was made in good faith, so it cannot be vandalism, by definition. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Todo

• Given the length, the lede should probably be three paragraphs

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be sure to use the Mexico WMO report when it comes in

  Not up yet... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for overlinking (I noticed Carib Sea is linked twice just in the lede)

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Find the status on the missing person in DR (and should it say "is missing" or "was missing"?)

  Couldn't find that anywhere. ReliefWeb doesn't even cover the Dominican Republic, and newspaper searches didn't yield anything useful. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is a breakdown of the death toll by every location really needed in the lede? It seems to distant to see a rattled list of deaths by each state. I would rather see some statistics, like houses damaged, destroyed, people left homeless, any other big impact thingies.

  I kept it in, and left the other big impact thingies in the third paragraph. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first mentioned the wave on June 20" - you should mention "as a candidate for tropical cyclone formation", as they likely mentioned in some context beforehand in the TWD

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "By 1800 UTC, the a surface low-pressure area had formed about 90 nautical miles (105 mi; 165 km)" - first, fix "the a", and second, why do you use nautical miles? It's not used elsewhere, and normally isn't used in TC articles

  Removed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Late on June 25, Hurricane Hunters confirmed the development of a low-level circulation, which meant that the area of disturbed weather met all the criteria for it to be considered a tropical depression. Accordingly, the system was classified as Tropical Depression One at 2200 UTC while it was located about 345 miles (555 km) to the east-southeast of Chetumal, Quintana Roo" - is there any way that could be condensed a bit?

  I like it that way, since it explains why low-level circulation mattered, and then the other sentence stands alone by itself. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Alex was now located in a moist, low shear environment" - that's sort of an awkward way to start a paragraph

  It's just an adjectival clause, so I prefer this wording to break monotony. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the National Hurricane Center confirmed that Alex had made landfall" - why confirmed? There is no earlier indication of moving ashore, so I don't really get it.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm curious, did Alex have the lowest pressure of a Category 2 hurricane? If so, that should be mentioned.

  I'm not sure how to reference this without doing WP:OR by using HURDAT. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "by 0000 UTC July 2 (10 p.m. CDT July 1), the Sierra Madre Oriental disrupted Alex's core, causing the storm to weaken into a tropical depression and dissipate over San Luis Potosí[1]" - is there something missing? There's no fullstop after Potosi.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it up through the MH. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Alex (2010)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ★ Auree _talk 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Comments

Resolved comments from ★ Auree talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lede "[...] to form in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. Forming [...]" – tweak for less repetitiveness "and produced over $1.8 billion (2010 USD) of damages." – odd wording Switched words. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) "Fourteen people were killed in Central America during Alex's first landfall as a result of flooding" → Fourteen people were killed in Central America as a result of flooding during Alex's first landfall. Fixed to your suggestion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) "the outer rainbands of the storm" – the storm is already mentioned a bit often, so I think "outer rainbands" would suffice. Fixed to your suggestion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) "killed three in Acapulco, one person in Oaxaca, and one person in Chiapas." – I'd suggest "killed three people in Acapulco, one person in Oaxaca, and another in Chiapas" for a bit more prose diversity. Fixed to your suggestion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Same goes for the succeeding sentence... "deaths," "deaths," "deaths," and "deaths" Removed the plethora of deaths. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think a storm "produces" outages; it causes or triggers them. Changed to "triggered". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Meteorological history "thunderstorm activity spread across Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and eastern Cuba" – to avoid prose cluttering, change all of those locations to just Greater Antilles? "remained favorable for eventual development." – It's mentioned that it had already developed prior. I suggest saying redevelopment "had gradually became" – grammar The article mentions the development of a low-level circulation initially, but then goes on to say a surface low developed by 1800 UTC. It once again mentions the circulation in the subsequent sentence. A bit later, you again mention a surface low, and that its formation was confirmed on June 25. Was it not initially confirmed to have existed, or was it a different low? Are the two circulations mentioned the same, and which is associated with the low that apparently formed after the establishment of a low-level circulation or what? I'm a bit confused as to what's going on here. "indicatedthe" – messy "become tropical depression" – messy "to inhibit the storm" is a bit redundant, since it has already been mentioned that the anticyclone is positioned over the storm. "itobtained" – Be consistent with time notations throughout the mh. Initially, the article only notes UTC times (which is preferable and recommended), but then goes on to include CDT times. Judging from the first two paragraphs, I think this still needs a thorough copy-edit. ★ Auree talk 03:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Preparations Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula – I don't think Mexico needs to be linked again A tropical storm warning was posted – posted? for the duration of the storm → during the storm "Thirteen shelters were opened in Reynosa,[37] twenty-two in Matamoros, and ten in San Fernando; a total of 3,000 people sought protection from the storm in the three shelters" – which three shelters? There are a total of 45 shelters mentioned. "90 shelters were opened throughout the state" – any way you can avoid opening the sentence with a number? "which would potentially cause" – not too sure about this wording That's all for the preparations section. ★ Auree talk 04:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I fixed all of the prose issues listed, except for the shelter thing... I have no idea what's up with that... Juliancolton (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Fixed the "three shelters" thing. It should have been "shelters in the three municipalities". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I'm satisfied. One more quibble for the MH: "At 0200 UTC on July 1, the National Hurricane Center indicated that Alex had made landfall with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph (165 km/h), gusts of 125 mph (205 km/h) and an unusually low central pressure of 947 millibars (28.0 inHg) in the municipality of Soto la Marina in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.[25][26] After the storm, this intensity estimate was revised to sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) a central pressure of 946 millibars (27.9 inHg)." – I feel this part doesn't match the rest of the MH's standards. Any way we could tighten it up a bit? The wikilinking here also seems a bit excessive. ★ Auree talk 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Impact: This section is a bit over-detailed, but probably nothing detrimental to GA status "Be consistent in whether inch or mm is mentioned first, and how you note inch. Right now, there's a mix of in and inches throughout the section "The system produced rainfall across the Greater Antilles in the central Caribbean Sea" – which system? Alex or its precursor? "the majority of whom were temporarily relocated" – I'm not sure if this is grammatically correct "Although it has stayed relatively clear of the site, the approach of Tropical Storm Alex did cause BP to delay by a week plans to increase oil capture from the leak" – this sentence reads a bit oddly to me "In Chiapas, one person, from Guatemala, died and four more were injured when their bus rolled over as it traveled over a damaged highway" – same as above, especially with all the commas "The storm's most significant effect fro in the region was excessive rainfall, which was reported throughout the region" – typo, plus slightly repetitive "between 97.25 mm (3.829 in) and 315.5 mm (12.42 in) were reported at weather stations statewide" – mm of what? Also, don't we note inch totals first? "The pluviometer at Estanzuela reported that a total of 890 mm (35 in) of rainfall were recorded;[71] in Arroyo Seco, in San Pedro Garza García, 588 mm (23.1 in) of precipitation was recorded" – inconsistency: should it be x in (x mm) of rainfall/prec was recorded, or were recorded? "About 80% of Matamoros was under water, including at least 400 neighbourhoods, some flooded under a foot of water,[64] forcing 4,000 people to shelters" – a bit of a long, cluttered sentence "with damage in additional municipalities still being inspected[95]" – this is probably very outdated by now Throughout the Nuevo Leon section, the tenses used imply recency. "one bricklayer who died after a housing unit under construction collapsed on top of him; two men and a woman who died after their vehicle rolled over and crashed into a semi-trailer truck due to the intense rainfall; a 25-year-old who was swept away by swift currents and pinned against a fence; an elderly man who died after a wall toppled over him, a woman who died after a large boulder from a rock slide fell on her home, and a young man who fell onto the Arroyo Topo Chico." – way too detailed "The flooded stream washed away multiple parked vehicles,[105] a popular flea market and sport facilities built in a riverside greenway;[106] while it destroyed about 45 kilometres (28 mi) of Monterrey's main arterial streets[74]" – poor flow "causing intermittent availability of telecommunication services" – "intermittent unavailability" would sound better here, since the services were initially available "Thousands of citizens in Ciudad Acuña were evacuated after Arroyo Las Vacas flooded after 40 in (1,000 mm) of rain fell on nearby mountain ranges" – after, after gets a bit confusing "36 hour period" – hyphenate 36-hour "McAllen, Texas, measured 6.66 inches (169 mm) on June 30 and is now the city's wettest June day on record" – weird wording "About $10 million (2010 USD) of agricultural damage were reported in Hidalgo County from Alex" – grammar That's it for this section. A bit over-detailed in some areas, but on the other hand it's extremely thorough and comprehensive. Definitely GA+ worthy. ★ Auree talk 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Changes done. Keep 'em coming. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Aftermath "$4.8 billion (2010 MXN; $375 million USD) were released by" – grammar "rescue capabilities, in Laredo" – unnecessary comma "animal husbandry: In" – lowercase "in" That's all for this section. Good work on this article! ★ Auree talk 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Excellent sourcing throughout the article.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A thorough and comprehensive read for sure, though some part seem a bit detailed.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   Public domain images with relevant captions

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pass despite a few overly detailed sections, as this article definitely meets GA criteria. Very nice work on this; it was a great read! ★ Auree _talk 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Alex (2010). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/WTUS84-KBRO.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Flash-flood-warning-extended-across-Jamaica

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Alex (2010). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1298125&lang=eng_news
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411090214/http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/7c954b2a681dd8c89db2c26caf6152ee to http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/7c954b2a681dd8c89db2c26caf6152ee

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) 18:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Alex (2010). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016052025/http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/58728fb8aae6dbf3108c44ad75040693 to http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/58728fb8aae6dbf3108c44ad75040693

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) 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. 2016 is also notable. --Hurricane Tracker 495 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Hurricane Tracker 495 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Alex (2010) → Hurricane Alex – WP: PRIMARYTOPIC, no other Alex was near as destructive or deadly. It is similar to Hurricane Gert. --Hurricane Tracker 495 16:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose When people think of Alex, they either think of 2004, 2010, or 2016. No Primary topic. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 17:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  That depends on people, I definitely think of 2010. It's just that the WMO denied the request to retire the name. No one even thinks of 2004, though as 2016 was so rare, that may be notable. Either 2010 or 2016. But, the only thing that was notable about 2016 was that it formed in January.

  To sum it up, no one thinks of 2004. It's really 2010 or 2016. --Hurricane Tracker 495 17:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

How does your RM benefit readers? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. 2016 outstrips it.[3] -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – This storm isn't really more notable than the others in general. The 2010 and 2016 storms are probably the most notable ones, but it's rather close. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose not all people always think the same thing, or else the world would be boring. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 18:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Hurricane Alex (2016) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

with maximum sustained winds of with sustained winds

I think a word, or rather a speed is missing from "with maximum sustained winds of with sustained winds ". ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers, thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the "with sustained winds" clause as redundant to the "maximum" clause. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dylan, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)