Wikipedia

Talk:Hurricane Calvin (1993)

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

Todo edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • Next step is a copyedit to improve the wording throughout. And more impact, pictures, references. Jdorje 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Need to specify which tons are being used in the article; imperial or metric. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Links edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1 2 3 (so I don't lose them, I am on a school computer atm. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago115 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Calvin (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Yellow Evan, I will be reviewing Hurricane Calvin (1993), a relatively rare landfalling July hurricane. As you've said yourself, due to my thoroughness in these reviews, please treat this as a mini-FAC. That being said, please do not dismiss errors as outside the scope of WP:WIAGA; since you said that you aren't planning any FACs soon, the qualms that you do not fix will most likely never be fixed. As always, thanks in advance. As general reminders, remember to add non-breaking spaces between numbers and their identifiers, and metric conversions for units, where possible. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit

  • "Continued strengthening occurred as Calvin turned northward, after originally heading westward. As Calvin was turning northward..." → This is all a back and forth section of prose that can be very easily simplified. Suggest changing to "Continued strengthening ensued as Calvin curved from its initial westward track northward, and was upgraded to a hurricane on July 6."
  • You use 'Calvin' in the lead not once, twice, three times, [...] but an astounding eleven times! Consider using syllables like 'tropical cyclone', 'storm', 'hurricane', etc.

Background edit

  • "In an average July, a high pressure system is located over Texas, preventing landfall in Mexico." → Two things here. First, link high pressure system to the appropriate article page. Secondly, specify landfall by saying 'tropical cyclone landfalls', after all, landfall can apply to a number of storms and has other applications.
  • "However, a trough steered Calvin northward to hit Mexico as a hurricane in the month of July," → First, link trough. Second, we get it. Since you included climatological information for the month of July in the previous sentence and in the lead, I know for sure that everyone knows that Calvin occurred in July, so you should say something along the lines of 'as a hurricane that month.
    • Then, it can be implied as Calvin is one of 3 MX cane landfalls. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Reference No. 1 says nothing about the climatological July, nor does it mention anything about the trough that was just indicated in the previous sentence.
  • Now that I read the following clause, it's apparent that the first part of the background needs reworking. I've provided the suggested wording as follows – "However, an anomalous trough steered Calvin northward to hit Mexico, making Calvin one of three Pacific hurricanes to strike the nation during July since record keeping began in 1949."
    • And I know I provided suggested wording on that last bullet, but if you wanted to reword it yourself, keep in mind that HURDAT did not begin keeping records in 1949. HURDAT was created in 1976, but data since 1949 has been kept in it. Make sure you make that clear.
      • what does that have to do with anything? Record were kept in 1949, just no database was created. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • The wording still means that HURDAT was created in 1949, and has been keeping records since then. You need to be more specific and say that record keeping began in 1949, not that HURDAT began then.
          • No, it does not. It implies that record have been kept in 1949. You just wanna give me extra comments :p YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Reference No. 2 says nothing about anything it supposedly sources. The word 'Calvin' (or Eugene for that matter) is not even mentioned once in the associated PDF. The only thing in the PDF that might source the information is just a map with dots and lines, and no names. I do not see how that is helpful and sourceful. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Wrong. It gives a table of hurricane strike, and shows the ones in July. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Could you give me the page number? I'm not finding it. Also, since you're only using a select number of pages you ought to specify the |pages= parameter of the reference. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Meteorological history edit

  • "Despite the lacks of concentrated convection..." → Only use the plural form of 'lack' in the present tense. In this case, and pretty much in all uses you'll use on Wikipedia, use 'lack'.
    • It's a simple mistake! No need to waste your time being so through! I'm not dumb :P YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "...the system was classified using the Dvorak Technique..." → Again, common nomenclature would have 'technique' decapitalized.
    •   Done. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...a tool used to measure a tropical cyclones intensity." → Since we're talking about possessives, it should be tropical cyclone's, the possessive form, and not the plural, 'tropical cyclones'.
  • "...while centered approximately 275 mi (443 km) southeast of Acapulco." → 275 nautical miles (as stated in the report) is not 275 miles. To be specific, 275 nautical miles is roughly equal to 315 miles. Be careful, nautical miles are not equivalent to miles.
    • Changed. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Initially, the storm was expected to stay offshore and attain winds of 60 mph (95 km/h)*." → The discussion that cites this part (Reference No. 3) forecasts for 60 knot winds, not 60 mph winds. Please do not assume that such measurements are equivalent next time.
      • It's a brain fart! Don;t you know me by now TAM :P 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...and banding-type eye formed in association with Calvin later that day." → First off, it's a banding-type eye. Secondly, Reference No. 4 does say an eye formed, but never specifies that it was a banding-type one. I think you mean to have Reference No. 1 there, since that does specify the banding eye.
  • "Later that day, the NHC reported that Tropical Storm Calvin had attained winds of 65 mph (105 km/h)*." → Since you use the subject/predicate combination of 'the NHC reported', you should have the associated advisory discussion in which the NHC reported that winds attained such intensity. If you want to just keep the EPAC HURDAT there, that's fine, but remove 'the NHC reported that'.
  • "Continuing to intensify, the system was upgraded to a hurricane at 0000 UTC on July 6 while becoming the second hurricane of the season..." → Three things here. First of all, Calvin did not become a hurricane while in the process of becoming the second hurricane of the season, it intensified into a hurricane and as such became the second hurricane of the season. Secondly, Reference No. 4 does not back this up, I think you need Reference No. 1 and the EPAC HURDAT reference for this one. Also, you should add a comma after 'season'.
  • "...of a large, monsoon-like deep-layer-mean..." → Since the report specified that it was a monsoon-like deep-layer-mean cyclonic circulation, this should not link to anticyclone, which suggests anticyclonic rotation.
  • ...and upon reading the next clause of this sentence I was completely confused because the second clause ends at an abrupt stop that would appear truncated at first glance. Allow me to revise it for you – "Around that time, Hurricane Calvin was embedded within the northeastern part of a large, monsoon-like deep-layer-mean cyclonic circulation, which stretched from the Intertropical Convergence Zone to the southwest Mexican coastline."
    • Decline, I don't use semi-colons enough. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That doesn't make it not wrong. The sentence suggests that Calvin's circulation center stretched from the ITCZ to Mexico, but it was the deep layer mean's cyclonic circulation that did such a feat. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "Furthermore, Calvin was a fairly large cyclone as surface winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)* were reported nearly 200 mi (320 km) from the storm's center." → Two things. First off, 200 nautical miles ≠ 200 miles. Secondly, everything in this paragraph that seems to source the second page of the TCR is pointing to the incorrect page. So far we should've only been sourcing Reference No. 1.
  • "Shortly after becoming a hurricane, Calvin developed an eye-like feature." → If this is the first time, what was the fuss about the banding-eye feature in the first sentence of the second paragraph?
  • "During the later morning hours of July 6, Calvin briefly slowed down before quickly accelerating to the northwest, bringing Calvin's center of circulation 90 mi (140 km) south-southwest of Acapulco." → Two issues with this. First off, it should be 'late morning', not 'later morning'. Secondly, both References 6 and 9 don't say anything about Calvin's CoC being 90 mi SSW of Acapulco. Please find a source that explicitly states such information.
    • WP:CALC for gods sake. Stop being so picky here. I'm sorry TAM, but it's really annyoing. It's not increasing your reputation at all. What don't you get about that. Oh BTw, I fixed the first issue.
      • It's still wrong. The center of circulation wasn't 90 miles off of Acapulco, but the maximum radius of tropical storm-force winds were. Those are two completely different things. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "...as a ragged eye appeared in satellite images." → Reference No. 10 does not even say anything about the eye at all.
  • "At 1200 UTC on July 7, Calvin reached its peak intensity of100 mph (160 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 966 mbar (28.5 inHg)." → You should source the EPAC HURDAT here too, since the MWR does not say anything about the time at which peak intensity occurred (1200 UTC).
  • "...approximately 40 mi (65 km)* west-northwest of Manzanillo." → Yet another conversion problem with this one. 40 nautical miles ≠ 40 miles.
  • "Calvin weakened to a tropical depression late on July 8 as it made a second landfall along the extreme southern Baja California Peninsula." → Since you say 'along', be sure to say 'coast' after peninsula.

TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

    • That makes no sense to say "coast". YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • If you don't want to say coast at least say 'ashore the extreme...' and not 'along'. 'Along' would indicate coast. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, it was near the coast since BCP is an underweight penisula. and "ashore" and "landfall would be redundant. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Preparations edit

  • "...was issued for a portion of the Mexican coast on July 6." → Since such information is readily available, you should specify the portions of which these warning products were issued.
  • "Six hours later, a hurricane warning was issued. By July 8, all hurricane warnings were discontinued. Six hours later, all hurricane watches were dropped. By 1800 UTC that day, all watches and warnings were dropped." → There's a lot of repetition in this sentence. 'Six hours later' is used to start a sentence twice in a row, and 'were dropped' is used to end a sentence twice in a row, almost as if this was planned. Use synonyms or similar forms with the same meaning.
  • "...flash floods and mudslides to occur." → I'm sure the phrase 'was expected' is missing somewhere in there.
  • Puerto Angel should have the accented 'A'.
  • Unlike quite a few of your references, No. 18 is not from LexisNexis but has no URL. Are you sure you didn't get it from LexisNexis? TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Yeah. If it's something like the LA times, it has no non-pay url (the google thingy usually goes dead after a dew days). Please trust me for once TAM. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • YE has gained +1 trust point. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • TAM has gained +2 reviewer points. 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Impact edit

  • "...some locations reported as high as 18 in (460 mm) of rain." → Since the associated citation only indicates one instance of 18 in rains, just specify the peak of 18.27.
    • Why? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Because based on the information we know only one place recorded rains of at least 18 inches; the map doesn't even have a contour for 18 inches so we only know that one place recorded such rainfall. Also, 'some' is WP:WEASEL. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • no, we do not. That's really OR to say if it's one. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "The flooding led to mudslides, killing 30 people on land, with 30,000 people displaced." → Two things. First, no need to get specific with "on land," mudslides occur on land, not water. Secondly, Reference No. 20 only specifies that 28 people were killed, not 30.
  • "Most of the casualties were due to flooding or car accidents on wet roads." → Reference No. 21 does not say anything about car accidents, or wet roads for that matter.
    • Tweaked before I uhhh. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nation-wide 42,063 people were evacuated from their homes.(Reference redacted) Additionally, at least 1,600 people were left homeless." → 'Were evacuated' implies that officials forced people out of their homes. In such case, they would be considered homeless, and as such we would have 43,663 homeless people. However, that is not the case. The report only says that people evacuated, instead of forcibly evacuated.
  • "In Puebla, a peasant died." → Two sentences later we get the fact that five people died in Puebla, so what's so what makes the peasant different than the others? What about the four others?
  • "In the latter, 11 deaths were reported as two rivers had overflowed their banks while in the former, five people died." → I know you are trying to differentiate Puebla and SLP, but these two states were not indicated in the same serial listing, so you can say former and latter.
  • "Moreover, six people, who were riding in a taxi died in Veracruz during Calvin." → You can make this sentence flow better instead of having the extra comma by saying "Moreover, six taxicab passengers died in Veracruz during Calvin."
    • Well, they could have been driving, so no. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Forgot about that, but you can make it flow better by saying - "Moreover, six people riding in a taxi died in Veracruz during Calvin." TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • So, you thought a robot drive humans around? XD XD Anyhow, fixed.
  • "Across Naryait, Calvin brought heavy rains to the state." → Again, another sentence with an unnecessary comma stop that can be made more concise by saying, "The hurricane brought heavy rains across Nayarit." Also, if you didn't notice, 'Naryait' is spelled 'Nayarit', plus it should be linked.
  • "While weakening, the storm also threatened ports such as Mazatlan along the Gulf of California coast." → Okay, great. Did it do something in Mazaltan? Because if it didn't, then it shouldn't even be in the impact section, let alone in the article at all, because 'threaten' is subjective unless preparatory measures actually begun there.
  • "Later in its life, Clavin struck the Baja California Peninsula, though the storm had weakened considerably by that time" → Needs a full stop. Secondly, be more concise, tropical cyclones aren't living things, so don't use 'life'.
  • "Offshore, 3 ships..." → Per WP:MOSNUM, 3 should be written out. It might be a continuity problem, but seeing as there is only one other number in standard form I would still think that 3 should be written as, well, 'three'.
  • "...were intercepted by the storm, but the ship sustained no damage." → This makes it seem like the storm was purposely chasing after the ship, after all, 'to intercept' is a purely on-purpose word. Use something like the ship was 'caught within the storm' or something to that effect, so that the implied meaning is that they unintentionally were caught in the storm, not the storm was chasing them.
    • No, it does not say that. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, it says that immigrants were intercepted by the hurricane. Sorry, but the hurricane is not a custom agent nor is it border patrol. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Of course not, but it was still intercepted. It IMO does not imply if was on purpose. Maybe the immigrants wanted to be in a hurricane, though I hope not, but that's besides the point. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "In all, the damage from Hurricane Calvin amounted to over 100 million new pesos, or $32 million (1993 USD, $42 million 2005 USD)." → You should link 'new pesos' to the 'Nuevo peso' subsection of Mexican Peso. Also, you should use the inflation template to update that inflated cost number – 2005 is quite old in online standards, :P TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • It's not one of the costliest EPAC storms, so I removed it. And you've given me too many comments for me to do the first, change it yourself if you insist. 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oaxaca edit
  • "An estimated 7,000 were left homeless along the Oaxacan..." → Doesn't this completely invalidate the factoid that there were only 1,600 homeless Mexicans?
  • "Two rivers threatened to overflow their banks..." → Rivers don't threaten to overflow their banks. They either do or they don't. If they don't, no damage is caused, because, why would you have settlements in the river in the first place.
  • "...attained capacity..." → I think you mean attained peak capacity. Anything with capacity attains capacity, 100% of the time.
  • "...flooded and due to extended periods of torrential rains." → And due to extended periods of torrential rains... what happened? TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Guerrero edit
  • "In Acapulco, waves of 15 ft (4.6 m) moved through the city." → Okay, while I'm fine with Calvin producing 15 ft waves, but are you sure they moved through the city? That seems like an overstatement at first glance, but maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you meant that 15 ft waves hit the coast but not move through the city.
    • They hit beaches, which is part of the city. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • So specify that it was the beaches. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • we don't know if they were beaches. It could have been an overlook. There is not a beach everywhere along the cost. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "In several states, between 5 in (130 mm) to10 in (250 mm) inches of rain was recorded. However, in Las Pilas, the highest rainfall total was observed, at16.34 in (415 mm)." → All of this and the 15 ft waves aren't supported by reference no. 21.
  • "Although the city escaped significant damage,..." → Reference 35 does not say that Acapulco escaped significant damage. In fact, that news source was written as Calvin was approaching, so this doesn't support that statement.
  • "City-wide six people were killed(Reference redacted) while two other fisherman were missing." → Were these two men ever found?
  • "A mudslide killed a man and a son(Reference redacted) while three others(Reference redacted) one person was reported dead after trying to save his boat from sinking." → You start talking about 'three others' but never say anything about them, leaving a very odd sentence structure.
    • Removed the incomplete part. I deserve to run a mile for this really really bad article, and I will do later today. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "..."waste deep" water..." → Really? 'Waste' deep?
  • "Overall, several beach communities were destroyed, almost 1,000 dwellings were destroyed..." → Find a synonym for destroyed so you won't have to find yourself repeating 'destroyed'.
  • "...four cottages were damaged due to the winds and was later swept away." → Since we're talking about four cottages, it should be 'were later swept...', not 'was later swept...'.
  • "One two-story hotel was nearly destroyed as all the remained undamaged after the storm was a swimming pool." → You ought to use 'that' instead of 'the'.
    • surprised you understood that sentence. Yeah, tweaked. I wanna run 2 miles now. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "In a resort situated 18 mi (29 km) northwest of the city, high waves pounded many small resorts." → Since it's been a while since we've mentioned Acapulco, you ought to mention it again. Also, in a resort, waves pounded many small resorts? What? Is this resortception? TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Colima edit
  • "...a little to the west." → Do you know how far?
    • I mention a lot of distances. You've given me way too many comments for me to wanna fix it. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "The Instituto Oceanografico del Pacifico in Manzanillo reported a minimum central pressure of 994 mbar (29.4 inHg) in addition to the gale-force winds." → Since the I.O.P. is separate from the Mexican Weather Service you should say just 'gale-force winds' and leave out the preceding 'the'.
    • Your expliantion for why makes no sense, sir :P YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • So, allow me to refer you to a suggestion – "The Instituto Oceanograpfico del Pacifico in Manzanillo reported a minimum central pressure of 994 mbar (29.4 inHg) in addition to gale-force winds."
      • Oh, you wanted me to remove the "the", done :P YE Pacific Hurricane 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "State-wide, sustained winds of 60 mph (97 km/h) were observed at 1300 UTC." → You should say 'around 1300 UTC'. At 1300 UTC makes it seem like BAM! those winds occurred at that one time and then ceased.
  • "Shortly thereafter, near 1545 UTC, sustained winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) with gusts up to 45 mph (72 km/h) were reported in the same location." → The last location specified was 'state-wide', which definitely isn't very specific. You should mention Manzanillo again.
    •   Done. !!!!
  • "Offshore, several ships reported rough weather during Calvin's existence, with the Pacific Sandpiper reporting a maximum wave height of 44 ft (13 m)." → Once again everything is fine and dandy here but Reference No. 21 doesn't even cite anything in the first paragraph of the Colima section.
    • I randomly guessed what report this came from. This is why you are getting this issue. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "Two fatalities occurred offshore when a trimaran capsized; two fishermen were also reported missing." → Reference No. 21 says that the trimaran capsized 300 mi off of Acapulco, so this would go in the Guerrero section.
  • "Electrical and water services were cut off to the city of Mazanillio." → This is one of the better times to say 'the latter' instead of 'the city of Manzanillo.' TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • "the latter" just does not some right in my stupid brain. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Also, your response to my qualm does not sound right either, :P
Michoacan edit
  • "In the state of Michoacán, 700 homes were destroyed. Moreover, many bridges and highways were destroyed due to a 15-foot (4.6 m) storm surge." → Once again, Reference No. 21 does not source this material. Also, you're not being consistent with your units. You have a sing=on parameter that turns 15 ft into 15-foot. Not sure you want that.
  • "...rough seas near Lazaro Cardenas..." → We just wikilinked Lazaro Cardenas in the last sentence! WP:OVERLINK.
  • "Although initially not expected to pose a threat to the ship Betula,(Reference redacted) rough seas near Lazaro Cardenas caused all 4,000 t (4,000,000 kg) of sulfuric acid to leak aboard the previously beached cargo tanker.." → I think you're getting the wrong idea, because the situation described in this sentence and the last completely capsizes what happened. (Pun!) Here's what happened – the hurricane was a threat to the Betula, after all, the rough seas caused it to ground itself off of Lazara Cardenas. It was then that a towing operation failed, thus causing the ship's sulfuric acid cargo to leak . What you're saying is that Calvin was raining sulfuric rain on the ship, which wasn't initially expected to be of concern.
Jalsico edit

Aftermath edit

  • "...the local health department..." → Should be plural; it is over a widespread area.
    • No, it was not. when I say that, I usually refer to one state in particular. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "...and an additional 20 t (20,000 kg)* of food..." → When converting tons, convert to tonnes, not kilograms.
  • "Many Los Angeles residents looked for ways to donate aid to the needy." → In what ways? This is never clarified.
  • "Simultaneously, fishermen in Playa Azul protested that their livelihood was endangered due to fishing bans; consequently, in Lazaro Cardenas, 28 people were arrested while warrants for 526 others' arrest were issued for disturbing peace and blocking highways. This sparked protests from two environmental group as a well a group of Mexican artists. Also, the fisherman demanded a $1 million compensation." → And what does this have to do with Calvin? There's no connection at all. You didn't mention a fishing ban earlier. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • It happened after the storm. Without Calvin, none of this protesting BS would have happened. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

See also edit

That's it for now. I'll probably check over the LexisNexis sources when I have the time. Feel free to fix the issues I've already posted. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Calvin_(1993)&oldid=1211222036"