Another relatively short one, but like many of my previous noms, this has a degree of special significance. Hurricane Grace developed and dissipated uneventfully, but its remnants contributed to the formation of what was arguably the most meteorologically important storms in history—the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter, more commonly referred to as the Perfect Storm. I realize the FAC folks aren't too fond of stubby FACs, but I am confident this is the most comprehensive account of the storm currently available. Iridescent (talk·contribs) gave me a quick, yet extremely helpful, review, and while a bit of tweaking may yet be needed I think the article is ready to become featured. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reports from a nearby ship indicated that the low had become a surface feature by October 25. - cite please?
While situated 390 mi (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cyclone attained its peak intensity with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h). - all distances need cites
...combined with abnormally high tides, these waves reached at least 15 ft (4.6 m). - cite? ceranthor 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. These facts are all cited to the next subsequent references, even if a couple sentences away. Is that an issue? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine so far as the standard meteorological stuff goes, but I get the feeling that a certain dimension of comprehensiveness is lacking: the term "Perfect Storm" is bandied around, without true coverage of the cultural significance. The existence of the film, for one, is confined to the "See also" section. What do you think about expanding the information on this? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough, because Grace and the Perfect Storm were effectively two separate weather systems that happened to have a unique interaction. As such, I tried to avoid having too much info on the nor'easter, which is better suited in the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter page. Hope this answers your question satisfactorily. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they had a unique interaction, wouldn't that require more coverage, not less? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more coverage on the interaction, but I think it's best to avoid giving undue weight to the nor'easter. Still, I'm open to being persuaded. Any thoughts are appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know very little about the topic area, so I doubt I'll be able to do any persuading. But if there was some kind of unique interaction, that inherently necessitates coverage. I don't think anyone will accuse you of unduly weighting it; in fact, it may alleviate the opposer's concern about length/comprehensiveness. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: No copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs One link needs disambiguating. Always check the toolbox, peeps. It's only a little click away.
Links All fine.
Sources All fine, but:
Pick a dating convention and stick to it. This has a mixture of two.
Consider linking some publications in the reflist to improve readership.
"Staff writer" as author is a bit redundant. Consider removal.
Whether it is the most comprehensive article on Hurricane Grace or not, I don't know, but the article is simply not comprehensive enough for an FA. The sources are mostly the preliminary NOAA reports from 1991 which aren't exactly secondary sources. It is hard for me to believe that other sources aren't out there. The map is extremely poor: it has no lat/long information, no date information, no pressure information, no position relative to the Halloween Storm brewing farther north. There are no wave reports or charts. I will look for sources next, but my advice is to withdraw the article from FAC, expand it to twice its length and resubmit in a month. No point worrying about prose at this stage. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references:
Bromirski, Peter D. (2001), "Vibrations from the 'Perfect Storm'"(PDF), Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2 (Good source for microseismic vibrations and what role Hurrican Grace played in their formation. Good map.)
Davis, Robert E.; Dolan, Robert (1992), "The 'All Hallows' Eve' Coastal Storm: October 1991", Journal of Coastal Research, 8 (4): 978–983, JSTOR4298051 If you don't have JSTOR access, please leave a post on my talk page and I'll email you the paper. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be Hurricane Grace and the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter. Two entirely different storms. The sources you have provided are excellent and will certainly be of use for other articles, but are all irrelevant to this page. I ask you to reconsider your oppose, since it is currently non-actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the references all have material on Hurricane Grace. Davis and Dolan have maps on the evolution of Hurricane Grace and of the low pressure system that together led to the Halloween Storm. I also found a conference talk link:
This link only has an abstract, but at the bottom of the abstract, there is a link to his recorded presentation. There he talks for about five minutes on the recurvature and extra tropical transition of Hurricane Grace. He also has some nice diagrams. While the conference abstract is not RS, he might have a paper in the press. I think your best bet is to email Jason M. Cordiera at SUNY Albany and ask him for references suitable for Wikipedia. He might even give you maps and diagrams, and you'll then have a great article. He is a graduate student who received his MS last year. You simply don't have enough material. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen those journals, and the info focuses on the nor'easter while mentioning Grace. No substantial info whatsoever regarding the hurricane. "Simply doesn't have enough material" is not a valid reason to oppose unless you can point out where the info is currently lacking. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mis-characterize the papers. At a minimum, you need to do the following things. (Please don't break up my post below with responses; reply at the end, if you must. This, however, is my last comment here.)
Remove references 4 and 6. You are synthesizing from primary sources (NOAA discussions conducted during the hurricane).
Minimize references to Rappaport. That is a preliminary report written less than 2 weeks after the hurricane. You can summarize some factual information (dates and times) from it, as some papers do, but not the interpretative content. It has not been peer-reviewed.
Replace (or improve) your map by incorporating the information in the maps in Bromirski and Maa and Wang.
Add a discussion of Bermuda subtropical storms, what are their characteristics and which of these are shared by Hurricane Grace. Here is another paper for that: Guishard, M. P.; Nelson, E. A.; Evans, J. L.; et al. (2007), "Bermuda subtropical storms", Meteoroloy and Atmospheric Physics, 97: 239–253. The paper discusses Hurricane Grace as an example of BSS (Quote: "The number of subtropical cyclones found in this survey are too numerous to provide complete synoptic histories in this paper. Thus, as indicated above, the synoptic evolutions of two representative storms are provided: one represents a typical named storm that had subtropical characteristics in the Cyclone Phase Space (Grace, October 1991). The other is unnamed ..." (p. 243))
Remove or reduce references to the USA today article; not clear if it constitutes a reliable secondary source.
Incorporate the information in Bromirski (first 8 pages) and say more about the wave characteristics of Hurricane Grace and how much they contributed to the big waves of the subsequent noreaster. Bromirski has maps and diagrams for Oct 27, 28 and 29 as well.
(It will help the article if you) Get in touch with Jason Cordeira to get the best sources.
Withdraw the article from FAC, work on it for a few weeks, and resubmit; otherwise, you do nothing but slow down an already slow FAC process and tax the patience of helpful reviewers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're coming across with an awful dismissive tone, and if you don't plan to respond further I see no need to continue working to alleviate your concerns. I also see no need to withdraw this just for the sake of it. I'll nonetheless reply to your points: 1) Why? The sources aren't primary—the hurricane can't write. 2) Again, this is the official report on the storm, and is arguably the most reliable source available on this topic. 3) I can't do much about the map, unfortunately; if you happen to be good with some kind of program, please be my guest. 4) That's irrelevant to this article and seems an attempt to fill it with fluff. 5) Huh? How is USA Today not a reliable source? 6) Again; the nor'easter and the hurricane were two separate storms. Once Grace dissipated, the non-tropical low took over and any subsequent effects are not suitable for documentation within this article. 6) I personally don't see a need as I've explained above. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were all previously addressed here. It's not an interesting topic, but it says all that needs to be said on the topic and there's no obvious omission or overspecialization that I can see. – iridescent 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that the article is comprehensive as is. The writing seems good, and I spot-checked a couple sources to make sure they matched the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on use of sources - everything checks out fine. Common phrases and usage is common to -all- weather related terms, and the phrasing are standard, so any similarities are not in any violation. There is quite a bit of rephrasing and use of alternatives that help achieve this. The sources are also summarized in a way that multiple sentences are condensed, which helps keep away from any problems. I did not find any concerns, and I read through all of the sources. In regards to other concerns - the prose is technical, straight forward, and accurate. I have no problems with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is nicely written, compact, and interesting. The only things I would suggest are (a) saying a little more about the loss of life, as it's tucked away at the end as an after-thought with no details, and (b) wherever possible explaining the meaning of technical terms. Just one example, "An area of clouds near Bermuda became increasingly convective in nature, and gradually became entrained into the expanding and developing circulation of the subtropical storm." If there's an easy way to explain "convective" and "entrained," and similar terms in other sentences, without bogging the writing down too much, that would be good. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, for the supports and suggestions. I've tried to make the storm's demise a bit more prominent within the article, as searching for further info proved fruitless for the most part. I'll also work on cutting down on the jargon. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting and informative article on a storm that contributed to one of the most well-known cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written --Anhamirak 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant support. Knowing nothing about the WikiProject's organisations and planning, I'm curious as to whether all of the low-hanging fruit have been picked and put to FAC, leaving only shorties like this one. If not, I wonder whether the more individual, notable, lengthy events (or groups of events?) might be emphasised in planning. I find it on the borderline in terms of the substance, the size required to fulfil a basic FA requirement, to exemplify "our very best work". It gets to a stage where I want more peripheral information to fill it out. Will the FA list eventually be dominated by short pieces on each individual storm? Will other nominators get the idea that breaking their articles into little bits can generate a bunch of bronze stars rather than a single one?
On a positive note, your writing has really improved: it's great to see. I would be delighted if it were applied to larger pieces. The other issue is that I feel the formula that has evolved for these articles is sometimes just too easy, obscuring possibilities for providing more detail that would be of interest and relevance to the readers. I feel as though I've read some of the sentences 100 times already, with slots filled in.
"that caused extremely high waves and resultant severe coastal damage along the U.S. East Coast." To be fussy, "caused" and "resultant" (the latter a pretty ugly English word, like "ulitize"), are rather uncomfortably parallel and repetitious. What about "that caused extremely high waves and resulted in severe coastal damage along the U.S. East Coast." It was wind as well as those high waves that caused the damage, I'm presuming. At the moment, it's unclear.
"The origins of Grace are traced back to a mid-level area"—who's tracing? Is it regularly traced? Let's get rid of these uncomfortable possibilities: "The origins of Grace go back to a mid-level area" (plain and simple).
If the name of the ship appears in Ref. 2, that's fine. Otherwise, it's not.
"An area of clouds near Bermuda became increasingly convective in nature, and gradually became entrained into the expanding and developing circulation of the subtropical storm." Oh ... can "in nature" go? As a non-meteorologist, I'd love to have it explained—what does convectivity mean in this context, and what is its role in storm formation. It's a bad sign, is it? Lovely second part of sentence, but again, is this a typical phenomenon, or is it mentioned here because it's unusual?
I haven't a clue, technically, what is going on here: "Hurricane Grace turned northeast later that day, as the rapidly approaching frontal boundary destroyed the storm's lower-level center." There's a chance to let us into some of the science of it all. Little additions here and there would make me happier about giving this a bronze star. Why did it become known as "the Perfect Storm"? More please ...
This sentence could be more effective in reverse: "While situated 390 miles (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cyclone attained its peak intensity with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h)." -> "The cyclone attained its peak intensity 390 miles (630 km) south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, with winds of up to 70 mph (110 km/h)." What bristled was that old chestnut "situated", which is often redundant.
Does "ft" (and "m") really have to be linked on first occurrence? Why? No one else does it.
Punch us to the floor right at the end: "A ship known as the Andrea Gail was lost, along with her crew members, during the storm." Oh, how many lives were lost? Could you import just a little of the narrative from Ref. 9? Sounds like a good story. Tony(talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.