Talk:Hurricane Ekeka

.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Ekeka (1992)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Images Yes

Well written Yes

Broad in Coverage I think so

Accurate I am pretty shore though the TCR dose not say it is a major hurricane.

Well Refs Pass

I guess this is my first GA!

--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I undid the changes you made, as the GA nom was not completed correctly. Additionally, you are not supposed to assess articles you worked on significantly. I relisted the storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Ekeka (1992)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Having read through it, I see only a few issues which I will list. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, autoformating of dates is discouraged. I have a script that will remove the autoformatting. Do you want me to use it?
  • I ran the script over it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash (2005–08, not 2005-08 or 2005/08)" per MoS. Thus 1991/1992 in your article needs to conform.
  • I changed the year, thanks for catching that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
• "anomalously" - how about unusually?
  • "Anamalously" was chosen by the official warning agency to describe the situation, and I would agree. Something unusual may not be an anomaly. I feel the wording emphasizes that it was beyond unusual. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
• Comment: Ekeka is not the only January February EPac/CPac tropical cyclone; see List of Pacific hurricanes#Off-season storms. But I'm not sure whether the statement about HURDAT (which I added) gives enough coverage/clarification already. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec - that list shows no other EPAC tropical cyclones in January. Even if it did, I think your qualifier of in Hurdat makes it clear enough. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant February. If you think the current clarification is fine that's okay. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think it would help to mention that it formed (or was recognized) near Hawaii, as it is difficult from the geographical description and the image of the storm track to picture exactly where this storm was. (Will address above comment when I understand what it means.)
  • I clarified more in the lede it was south of Hawaii, but I feel the rest of the article explains its proximity to Hawaii well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "increased the weakening rate, which weakened Ekeka..." - can you think of different wording than using "weakening", "weakened" so close together?
• "the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed the storm with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h)..." assessed the storm winds at 50 mph?
  • Got both of the above. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• What is HURDAT?
• When you say "basin", you mean the Pacific basin?
• "unfavorable wind shear" - is that strong wind shear, or some other aspect of wind shear?
  • HURDAT is the database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I clarified what it was in the article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I guess you do not know what those letters stand for?
• "Ekeka was the only tropical cyclone recorded in the official HURDAT "Best Track" database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information to occur in January or February within the Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line;" - perhaps some commas and "as", e.g. Ekeka was the only tropical cyclone, as recorded in the official HURDAT "Best Track" database of tropical cyclone track and intensity information, to occur in January or February within the Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line;? Or some other way to clarify the long sentence.
  • I shortened the sentence, and also removed the potentially confusing HURDAT acronym (which really just means hurricane database). BTW, "unfavorable wind shear" refers to wind shear that is unfavorable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

Very funny! According to the wind shear article, strong, vertical wind shear inhibits tropical cyclone development. How about putting that in?

Sorry if I sounded condescending, but I chose that writing for a reason. The source does not specify if the shear was strong or not; it just said (something along the lines of) that the shear prevented further development, and so the word "unfavorable" I believe works quite well there. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

Okay. But for FAC, I don't think that would pass.

Maybe so; however, this is GAN, not FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::::: It doesn't help the normal reader understand.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

Nice article! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ekeka...not the earliest TS in CPac history?

While Ekeka has mentions in the CPHC archives as well as in other documents, a new fact seems to have come to light: it may not be the earliest formation in the CPac. JTWC, Gary Padgett, and a document from the University of Hawaii peg that 1989's Tropical Storm Winona formed east of the Dateline and that it, at one point, held tropical storm intensity in the same basin. The UoH document (done in April of 2008) mentions that it was one of six cyclones added to data sets (the others were the 1975 Unnamed Hurricane and four depressions). The JTWC document also mentions that Winona was the cause of flash flooding on Kauai. According to the Padgett summary (in a small column for the April 2004 summary), Winona had no advisories issued while in the CPac, thus meaning that as a tropical cyclone in the CPac, it lacked a name (if named, it would have been named Aka). Any ideas on this one?

• UoH document: [1]
• JTWC summary for 1989 (Winona is the first storm): [2]
• Gary Padgett summary for April 2004: [3]

Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an unusual situation. I checked JMA, and their best track said it was briefly a TD east of the dateline. It is very weird that the CPHC doesn't even mention it. The question is, how would we cite this? I used the EPAC HURDAT as the source for Ekeka's record. The UoH document isn't a complete database, and the JTWC report is only the one storm. Maybe email CPHC if they'll be adding that info to the best track? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We could always do what we did for 2007 NIO (Yemyin). Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Ekeka. 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/20110607052610/http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1992atcr/pdf/cep/01c.pdf to http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1992atcr/pdf/cep/01c.pdf

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) 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)