Talk:Hurricane Paul (1982)

Move this article

Basically, the general format is having the Hurricane Name as the retired storm, with Hurricane Name (Disambiguation as the disambiguations, unless there were no retired storms, so the disambigs would have the name and other storms would have Hurricane Name (Year). However, based on how destructive Paul was and how well-known it was as a destructive storm (IMO), I propose it gets the main article. Hurricanehink 15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No objection. However I think for the atlantic, which has been more consistent about retiring names for longer, we should stick to the yearly suffix entirely for non-retired storms (though there are several "coincidentally" retired storms like Hurricane Francelia which are tempting not to add the year to). Jdorje 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Good point about storms like Francelia. That, Belle, and a few others could use a redirect for their name (like Francelia (1969) redirects to Francelia) but they can stay with the main article in my book. Especially if the storm is notable, like Alice in 1954-5. That doesn't need to be Alice (1954), but a redirect couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Some more on impact, and a little more in the intro. How about a breakdown of deaths by country? What countries did the TD even strike? Jdorje 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is next to impossible. There is next to no info available online, so all you could do is guess and mention other storms. Hurricanehink 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I love it when I'm wrong in cases like this. Is this better? Hurricanehink 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded it to B Class Storm05 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center

In case you don't know, the Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center in San Francisco was tasked with warning in tropical cyclones in that basin through the 1970's and most of the 1980's. I changed the line in this article...other articles may be similarly flawed. Thegreatdr 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Paul (1982)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the main problem with this article is the prose quality, which falls short of proper English in several places:

• "making it's second landfall" ~ should be "its"
  • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• "The origins of Paul were moving slowly over" ~ the use of "origins" here seems strange, it would seem more natural to use the "original [something]" or similar or rephrase it differently
  • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• "initialled" ~ I don't understand its use here. The definition I would use is "Mark or sign (a document) with one's initials, esp. in order to authorize or validate it". *"Advisories" also seems strange here (used at least twice); it links to a disambiguation page on the second occurrence which isn't particularly helpful in explaining what you mean
  • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• Some uses of hyphens when you mean dashes (date ranges, for example)
  • They were only a couple, but I fixed them.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• There's a space before the ref tag in at least one instance
  • I fixed this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "50,000 humans" sounds odd; I think '50,000 people' would be better - humans would be acceptable if there were an obvious need to clarify with regards to animals of some sort, but there isn't.
  • I like my original wording since "humans" is boring old and dead 9.9, but fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• "16 bridges were destroy" ~ this is not correct English
  •  Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Probably more.

A quick scan over the article with regards to the other criteria seems OK. However, the article desperately needs a copyedit. With the problems outlined above, I suggest requesting one off the guild, or else a determined effort to bring the article into line. I'm putting the article on hold so this can happen; in the meantime, I'll be assessing for the other criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think addressed the above and did some minor copyediting myself.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

p.s. This review is at GA2, suggesting that there was one before, but it's not at GA1. Was there one? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I haven't updated this is because I was expecting, well, more. While you've addressed what I picked up, it was really the whole thing that needed copyediting. There are still problems, like "After five days of rainfall, rivers greatly overflooded, and resulted in severe mudslides." (sense), "resulting in Paul to reach a peak intensity" (grammar) "was estimated at $100 million" (lacks a period/full stop at the end). The whole thing has errors like that. I can keep the article on hold further, or I can fail it and you can renominate it when you're done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep it on hold through Saturday. Ill try and do some more copyediting tomorrow. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I copy-edited the article. If you could look through it again, that'd be great! Thanks ★ Auree _talk 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Missed the article yet again on my watchlist. I feel I can't make a judgement now although it looks favourable, so I'm requesting a second opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

The article is riddled with grammatical errors, misplaced commas, unclear phrasing. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout, sentence by sentence by someone with a good command of written English, clearly fails criterion #1a at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. While it certainly falls short from brilliant prose, I believe in its current state it's an overall cohesive article. I re-copyedited it, and there were a few misplaced commas as far as I could tell; I don't see any patent grammatical errors that stick out enough to fail the criteria. If you could point out at least a few instances, I might get a better understanding of what you're implying. ★ Auree _talk 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, give a more detailed review please. Thank you. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the most obvious examples:

Hurricane Paul was a particularly deadly and destructive Pacific hurricane, killing a total of 1,696 people and causing $1.156 billion in damage during its formative stage. needless comma, suggest change to "which killed"

The hurricane then commenced accelerating toward the northeast, and upon doing so it reached peak winds of 110 mph (175 km/h). "Commenced accelerating" - "accelerated" Better to simplify

Minor preferences like these shouldn't be detrimental to a GAN. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a preference, it is a matter of correct word choice. Why not write: "The hurricane then accelerated towards the northeast reaching peak wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h)." Clearer and simpler. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks to produce severe flooding, and multiple mudslides impacted the region. Clumsy - "impacted"?

What's wrong with impacted? Nevertheless, I'll just change it to affected. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, "After five days of rainfall, many rivers burst their banks producing severe flooding and multiple mudslides." Clearer and simpler. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Throughout Central America, at least 1,432 people perished due to these effects, with most of the fatalities occurring in El Salvador and Guatemala; another 225 deaths were attributed to the depression in southern Mexico. Near the area of landfall further north in that country, Paul was responsible for moderate damage and 24 fatalities. Clumsy and confusing.

Tweaked. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The precursor disturbance to Paul—an area of low barometric pressure—was first noted near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua on September 15, accompanied by a large amount of thunderstorm activity. Needlessly complex, rewrite in plain English

This is a meteorology article. You're going to have to expect complexities, and compared to some other storm articles this isn't that complex at all. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"An area of low barometric pressure and thunderstorm activity was first noted on September 15, near the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. This was the precursor disturbance of Paul." I don't expect poor prose in any GA. As it appears that you can't see this, I question why you are copy-editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect, your suggestion seems incredibly stubby. I'll tweak it around a bit. ★ Auree _talk 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

two days after the first issuance. "issuance"?

Removed that part. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

though the death toll was initially believed to be at 289, "at"?

Honest mistake. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Throughout southern Mexico, floods from the precursor depression to Paul killed another 225 people. "of Paul" is better English

Actually, it doesn't matter. They're both quite acceptable. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the storm, the Government of El Salvador received criticism for failing to keep the public well informed. for failing to keep the public well informed. "were critized" is better than "received criticism"

This is a GAN, not an FAC. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Use plain English. These apply to all Wikipedia articles, whatever their status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It provided over $300,000 in aid and declare a state of emergency; "and declared" presumably

 Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

though exact information on the storm during the time is unavailable What time is this?

Clarified. ★ Auree _talk 16:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to the threat of the hurricane, an alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur. this type of phrasing which is common throughout the article is needlessly clumsy. Simpler and better to say something like "A hurricane alert was issued for the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and Baja California Sur." And a date is needed for this.

The specific date/time is not known, and no offence, but your wording changes the meaning as it gives me the impressing that tropical cyclone watches and warnings were issued, when they were not.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

So what sort of alert was issued? Please make it clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The source did not say. It said "The weather service [EPHC] issued an alert for Baja California". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Overall, very poor prose which fails to flow. Needs thorough copy-editing by someone who can write good plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be more thorough when I give it another copyedit. ★ Auree _talk 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but it might be better to get an uninvolved editor to copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• So...what are the latest developments of this article...Is it good article worthy or not? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to take a look yourself. All issues have been addressed, but I am not sure if there is more.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I believe this remains my call. I see a clear improvement since Jezhotwell's comment, and so now believe this article should pass unless there are any clear objections. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Paul (1982) → Hurricane Paul – This Paul is much more prominent (pageviews) than any other Pauls. That's because he's much more destructive than any other incarnations and well, again i'll consider this as primary topic. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose again, same as the others, the year is a critical part of the identity even if (2012) and (2006) they are more recent and readers are more likely to have been recently affected. Present titling serves everyone and is fine per WP:TITLE. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support - Clearly the primary topic. Jdcomix (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that most of the impact occurred as a depression, and that the 12 and 06 versions of the storm were mildly significant, I disagree. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Damage total?

I calculated $776 million, based on what's in the article. How is it over $1 billion? @Yellow Evan: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The 1.16 billion total comes from this edit, which must have gotten removed/copyedited out over the years. I'll look at this further when I get back to Norman. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan and Hurricanehink: 100M+280M+250M+100M+356M+70M equals the $1.16 billion total. All of those individual numbers are in the prose. Each number has its own source. Noah^Talk 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I downgraded both the death and damage total figures by quite a bit. I wrote this article eight years ago when I was a very edgy and highly annoying teenager whodidn't know as much about death/damage totals as I do know. I didn't even know LexisNexis was a thing back in the day, and the article is not how I'd write it today (then again, I refuse to touch the EPAC now). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks YE. As a former teenage editor who maybe was a little brusque at times, I appreciate your editing hours and your wit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)