Talk:Hurricane Odile (1984)

Hurricane Odile (1984) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 16, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Todo[edit]

Good job finding so much impact. It needs a copyedit, more MH, and better references (the last two refs don't have full dates, they just have months/years). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Odile (1984)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The 15th named storm and 12th hurricane of the active 1984 Pacific hurricane season" - Please spell-out 15th and 12th to fifteenth and twelfth, respectively.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"about 297 kilometers (185 miles) south of Acapulco" - For consistency with the rest of the article, switch the miles and the kilometers so that the miles is outside the parenthesis.
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"active 1984 Pacific hurricane season developed from a tropical disturbance" - It appears that you are missing a word here, which I would assume to be "Odile" between "season" and "developed". After adding the word "Odile", place a comma following it.
- It makes sense to me, or am I going insane? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
  - This is how it currently reads: "the active 1984 Pacific hurricane season developed from a tropical disturbance"; I don't know about you, but I don't think the 1984 PHS, as a whole, developed from a tropical disturbance.--12george1 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all the storms did, so I guess it is correct either way. :P Anyway, re-worded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a rather vague summary of the impact. Why not add info about the 900 homes damaged, the evacuation of 7,000 people, 80% of crops damaged in Guerrero, ect.?
Added a little more. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Six deaths were reported, and two people were reported missing." - Use should avoid using the word "reported" twice in one sentence. I would suggest re-wording to something such as this: "Overall, the storm caused six deaths occurred, and two other people were reported missing."
- Incorporated your suggestion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It weakened to a Category 1 hurricane early on September 22." - Either I am missing something, the track map is incorrect, or the newspaper article is wrong. While the storm was approaching the coast, you can see that the storm suddenly weakened from a Category 2 to a tropical storm near landfall, skipping Category 1 intensity, or very quickly passing through it.
You are correct, actually, the newspaper is based off of real-time data. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"According to press reports in Mexico City, officials warned that illness may occur due to a lack of of drinking water could occur." - I don't see any need for the words "could occur" on the end.
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"7,000 people, and did leave 20,000 families without any water service." - Technically this isn't a grammar error. However, it would be better to say: "7,000 people, and left 20,000 families without any water service."
Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in the state of Guerrero was damaged." ----> "in the state of Guerrero were damaged."
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph of the impact section, use start three consecutive sentences with the word "the".
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"The tourism resorts in these areas were also affected by Hurricane Norbert just a week after Odile hit." - How can that be? Norbert dissipated only four days after Odile. So how could the tourism resorts be affected one week later?
Removed, ref does not back that up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"maximum rainfall total were recorded " - Reword to either "maximum rainfall total was recorded" or "maximum rainfall totals were recorded".
Did the former. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the country, rainfall fell in 2201 locations." - Is this really necessary? We have never mentioned facts like these on other tropical cyclone articles.
- Don't see anything wrong with having it, WP is not paper, BTW I have included that before in other articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any more impact from Spanish language sources?
- No, everything I get is from the 2008 storm/mirror sites. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references have accessdates
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reference #1, you are missing the publisher, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Don't see any need for it in Template:Cite journal, at least for GA status, none listed in WP:MWR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reference #3, the title is incorrect (Hurricane Odile - September 16-24, 1984), the author is missing (Roth, David M.), the date is incorrect (April 2, 2007), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shouldn't be in the work parameter.
- Why should NOAA not be in the work thingy? but fixed the rest. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
On reference #4, you need to include the Associated Press. You can do this by adding the "|agency=" parameter to cite news, and then type in or copy/cut and paste it there.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat the process on reference #5, and then add the author parameter, with the author being "Levi, Isaac B."
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have more for later.--12george1 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues:
- Without looking at the infobox, I am unable to to determine when the storm dissipated/ETed.
  - Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "in flooding that flooded 30 highways" - Thanks you adding a better summary of impact to the lead. However, there is two problems here. First, you should say "flooding that flooded"; it probably should be reworded to something like "in flooding that inundated 30 highways". Second, the storm did not flood "30 highways", it flooded "30 miles of highways".
  - I can't find a very good way to word this, I honestly don't know what "inundated" mean, so I found a way to word it, not sure if it makes sense though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "forced the evacuation of 40,000 homes." - Hmm, I didn't know that homes could evacuate. I think you mean: "forced the evacuation of 40,000 people".
  - Heh, magic :P. Jk, fixed, I probably was in a middle of a mental lapse when fixing it (as usual for me). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How come a system went from a tropical disturbance to a tropical depression on the following day.
  - Did not see anything about that in the MWR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "While maintaining peak intensity for a day, the cyclone" - Hold on, on the track map, it shows that the storm was a Category 2 hurricane (its peak intensity) for only two dots (12 hours), so why do you say it maintained its peak intensity for a day, which implies at 24 hours?
  - A half a day then. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The impact is rather disorganized and has a few errors:
  - The first sentence looks like something that happened after the storm; also the lack of drinking water isn't the only reason for a possible illness.
    - It happened after the pre-Odile floods and before Odile. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rainfall information should probably be mentioned first, because that is how the flooding was caused. Though I would first reword that sentence with the peak rainfall total from "The maximum rainfall totals were recorded in Costa Azul and Acapulco, where it caused over 24.73 in (628 mm) of rainfall." to "Heavy rainfall occurred in southwestern Mexico, especially in Costa Azul and Acapulco, where precipitation peaked at 24.73 in (628 mm)."
Did a hybrid of the two. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Unless there is specifics on the 6 deaths (such as locations and how the fatalities occurred), you should move the total toward the end of the impact.
- Why? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reference #4 does not state that 40,000 people evacuated from Acapulco.
  - Another mental lapse (facepalm), it is 7,000, stupid YE. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- The reference issues have not been addressed/fixed.
  - They should be done know. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention earlier, "R.L. Cross" stands for "Robert L. Cross", so change that to "Cross, Robert L."
  - Done. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, what's the status of this article? I see you recently gave it a copyedit. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see the recent copyedit made. However, there are still many problems with this article, and it some cases, I don't even know where to begin. Despite that extensive review I gave it, I am still unsatisfied with the article. If I were you, I would check a recently passed GA just to give you an idea of what a GA really looks like; you should especially learn how to write a better lead. So you wanna know my decision for this article? Fail. Sorry, but I am no longer rubber-stamping the articles you nominate for GA (in contrast to last year) that are either of poor quality or little is done to fix the problems. No offense YE, but when I first looked at this article, it looked like it would be generous calling the article C-class, IMO. Sorry, but as I had earlier, I am going to fail this article.--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, but thanks for making a decision. Thanks for the review, and I'm very sorry if I wasted your time. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Odile (1984)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you need to get the status on the hundreds of missing people. If true, that could make Odile one of the deadliest Pacific hurricanes ever. Surely such a high death total would be mentioned in some newspapers, even if it was the 40. However, this is the only one in a Google news search for [Mexico deaths] in September and October of 1984, so something doesn't seem right. Where does the source that gives the 40 deaths get its info from? This list of Mexican disasters only lists the San Juanico Disaster as occurring in 1984, no mention of Odile. I do see a few sources when looking up "mexico muertos 1984 huracan" that brings up the exact same wording for "Odilia" in 1984 that caused 40 deaths and hundreds of people missing, but none of them go into any further detail. So, I'm a little skeptical about that total.
- Yea, I saw several news articles about that, but IIRC I used the El Universal, one of best newspapers in Mexico, said it, and I highly trust it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I doubt I will be able to find anything about their status. This is Mexico, after all. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I pointed out a source from the United Nations that included much less deadly storms. I just find it quite odd that there is no mention for those 40 deaths other than that one source. Can you provide an additional source that verifies the 40 deaths that does not have that exact same wording? And furthermore, you should find out about the hundreds of missing people. It was 28 years ago! I don't know what you mean by "This is Mexico, after all." Aside from being slightly racist, the country is well-developed and would likely have some record of a hurricane killing hundreds of people in the 1980s. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The El Universal is a major newspaper in Mexico, and I recon the several other sources used it because they trusted it, so why can't we use it? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, the source was published in 2007, while the the UN source could be older? Mexican storms tend to have tons of missing ppl in them, Cristina 96 and Kiko 07 are good examples of this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But I'm saying, it's odd that no other sources verify that data, particularly given how deadly the storm apparently was. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a little odd indeed, but that's not a surprise given the time period. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above aside, I think the first sentence could be more interesting.
- What do you suggest? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Odile was the third of fourth tropical cyclones to strike Mexico? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Has everything been addressed from the previous GAN?
- Yes, all of GC's comments were adressed before it failed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the lede say it developed on September 16th when the infobox says the 17th?
- I see where the 16th came from, but it is really the 17th. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you fix it then? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It should be fixed now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should mention the storm's wavering track offshore, as that is fairly unusual.
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and was downgraded to a tropical storm shortly before landfall, which was northwest of Zihuatanejo" - cut down the last portion to "shortly before landfall at Zihuatanejo".
- That would be fatlly inccurate, but I changed it to something esle. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mention two different death totals in the lede.
- That's what happens when you update an article's deathtoll. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The depression began to curve more towards the northwest of a narrow ridge located over southern Mexico" - I don't see how that's possible, considering the storm was offshore Mexico. How could it be northwest of a ridge over Mexico?
"the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Odile" - who did this?
- The EPHC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the EPHC" - you never once explained/linked to this
- I did, lol. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now you have. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" By the afternoon of September 19" - local time? UTC?
- UTC like most project articles. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But most project articles don't say vague terms like "the afternoon". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should be taken care of. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the EPHC reported that Odile had attained hurricane status while turning towards the east" - based on what for the intensity? And why did it turn east?
- The first idk, the second has kinda been added. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So there is no basis for how the EPHC knew it was a hurricane? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likely Dvoark, but the EPHC almost never mentions that in the MWR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Late on September 21, Hurricane Odile reached its peak intensity of 105 mph (165 km/h) (a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale) as it approached Acapulco." - how was that intensity ascertained?
- Huh? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per above, how did they know it had that peak intensity? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While maintaining peak intensity for a half of a day, the cyclone began to turn more northwestward in response to the weakening of the ridge." - you just said it was because of the trough that it turned to the northwest. Which one was it?
- No, I don't think I said that, but I am somewhat confused here. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now there seems to be a bit of a redundancy. You say that the trough caused the storm to turn to the west-northwest, and that the weakening ridge turned it to the northwest. That seems to be just one event. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the cloud pattern of Odile moved northwest, passing east of Manzanillo before weakening as it re-curved towards Texas" - how can the cloud pattern weaken if the storm was no longer a tropical cyclone?
- Just becuase there is no LLc, does not mean a cloud pattern can weaken. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how? I understand if the cloud pattern becomes disorganized, but weakens implies intensity, which implies a circulation, but if it wasn't a TC, I don't see how it can weaken after it was no longer a TC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non-TC can weaken as well. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"According to press reports in Mexico City, officials warned that illness may occur due to overflowed sewers and a lack of drinking water." - how is this related to Odile for what happened in Mexico City?
- Mexico City is not that far inland, so it is possible. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But was it from Odile? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to flooding from a combination of storms before Odile, over 40,000 people evacuated their homes due to flooding in Acapulco." - can you avoid saying "due to flooding" twice in the same sentence?
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, 11 people died when they were washed away in their homes." - was this due to Odile? The newspaper said "washed away during storms before Odile hit"
- No. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did Odile really cause rainfall as far as Costa Azul, Uruguay?
- No :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the country, rainfall fell in 2,201 locations." - what does that even mean?
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" In all, Odile brought the heaviest rains to the region since 1978." - the newspaper said that the rains before Odile were the heaviest, not the storm itself.
- Added a note about other systems. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to heavy rainfall, the ongoing floods in Mexico continued. Acapulco Mayor Alfonso Arugdin Alcaraz reported that flooding damaged roughly 900 homes, inundated 30 miles (50 km) of highways, triggered an evacuation of 7,000 people, and left 20,000 families without water service." - none of this is cited by ref 4
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In Mexico City, flooding streets brought traffic jams. Many homes were on the brink of collapse, though damage through the city was considered relatively minor. About 80% of the crops in the state of Guerrero were damaged." - I don't think any of this was due to Odile. For Mexico City, the article said Odile's rain was minimal, but there was "unusually heavy rainfall this season", so it's not clear if the traffic jams were from the hurricane. Ditto with the homes on collapse - that wasn't Odile. And the crops in Guerrero is similarly unclear, but the context implies it was due to preceding rainfall.
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"only to be resumed on September 23" - this isn't needed.
- I don't see any reason why not to have it. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
  - It's trivial, and you already said "suspended for two days" --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Switched this slightly. Any better now? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and thousands were left homeless" - where does it say Odile did this?
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evacuations in Acapulco should be removed, as that was caused by the previous storms. Notice how it says "flooding had forced the evacuations...", right after a paragraph saying "damaged an already battered area". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed this part. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Odile (1984). 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://archive.is/20120425171833/http://www.stormpulse.com/pacific/storms_similar_to/hurricane-odile-1984 to http://www.stormpulse.com/pacific/storms_similar_to/hurricane-odile-1984

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) 02:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]