Talk:1968 Pacific hurricane season

Todo

Good work for the most part. I'll give it B, but there are some things to be fixed before sending it off the GAN. First, the lead sentence needs to be more interesting. At the moment it just states the obvious. Also, I see numerous hyphens in the lead that need to be replaced by spaced en dashes (–) or unspaced em dashes (—). There are some other MoS breaches, as well. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, but the prose is generally pretty good. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Passed all but B3 and B4, I will check those in a few hours.----Irdicent 23 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed B3 and 4 ----Irdicent 23 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2007_epa.txt
  • In 1959 Mexico hurricane on 2011-05-25 03:38:59, 404 Not Found
  • In 1975 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:40:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 1991 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:56:22, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 07:11:09, 404 Not Found
  • In 2006 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-26 02:11:28, 404 Not Found
  • In 1959 Mexico hurricane on 2011-06-04 18:43:32, 404 Not Found
  • In 1959 Mexico hurricane on 2011-06-04 21:55:32, 404 Not Found
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:54:59, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://web.archive.org/web/20080427145201/http%3A//www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2007_epa.txt
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:55, 400 Bad Request
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:55:22, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=54434957_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=0&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:55:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=49463127_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=10
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:55:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=68177851_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:55:45, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=49947257_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=8&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:55:54, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=86707257_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=18&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:56:05, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=86778608_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:56:15, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=79707749_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=6&currentPage=0
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:01:51, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1968 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-06 13:56:25, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1968 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Throughout the article, none of the mbar units are converted to inHg. I would use the convert template.
• "formed from Intertropical Convergence Zone disturbances." - I would note the Intertropical Convergence Zone is what ITCZ stands for, because there are some ITCZ acronyms appearing in the article, but no explanation as to what it is.
• "All hurricanes were found to have had 85 mph (137 km/h) winds and with the exception of two tropical storms – Orla and Virginia – all storms were downgraded to peak intensities of 50 mph (80 km/h)" - This sentence is unsourced, and is missing a period at the end.
• "intensified.becoming" - Add a space and capitalize "becoming".
• "Dtaa based on satellite images," - typo
• "No damages or casualties were ever reported due to Iva." - Unsourced; should probably just remove that sentence
• "Orla was maintaining stability due to low-pressure baroclinical processes," - low-pressure is wikilinked to the wrong place
• "At the time, Rebecca drew comparisons to Hurricane Daisy of 1961" - Hurricane Daisy was in 1962
• "50 mi (80 km) winds and a central pressure of 1005 mbar. The reason the winds were set at 50 mi (80 km)" - 50 mi? You mean 50 mph?
• "The same picture also showed a compact central dense overcast, a large mas of deep convection," - Typo; "a large mas of deep convection" -> "a large mass of deep convection".
• "The reason is unknown." - I would just remove that sentence, since it will be hard to cite a source for it.
• Add a citation for the list of names for the 1968 PHS.
• "The Central Pacific used names and numbers from the Western Pacific's typhoon list. No systems formed in the area, and thus no names were required, although one storm, Virginia, tracked in from the West Pacific, keeping its name." - I would cite with sentence using the CPHC report of the 1968 PHS.
• What the heck happened to reference #4?
• Below reference #15, there is: "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "EPAC_HURDAT" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page."

All fixed except the "no damage" one which I don't think you need a source for things to don't happen. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ok. This is good enough. I will now pass this article for GA.--12george1 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GA re-review

I hadn't seen the article before tonight, but I'm bringing up a discussion whether the article indeed meets the criteria of a good article.

• There is no source for the season's official start and end
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That source doesn't indicate whether those dates apply to 1968 though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • "The Northeast Pacific basin has a broader peak with activity beginning in late May or early June and going until late October or early November with a peak in storminess in late August/early September. NHC's official dates for this basin are from May 15th to November 30th." So, that means it begins on May 15th and ends on November 30th. This statement is also consistent with other EPHC-era articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
        • That's only what the season is now, though. It indicates nothing about the dates in 1968. As we know from the Atlantic, the dates can change. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The 1968 Pacific hurricane season ties the record for having the most active August in terms of tropical cyclones" - does that mean tropical cyclones, or named storms? Also, when the record is clarified later on, it says since reliable records began, but when is that? 1966? That's only three years. Does it still hold the record? You shouldn't be citing it to HURDAT, either way
  • I'm not citing HURDAT, I switched the wording to "tropical storms". 1968 was the initial record holder, but 2009 tied it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
    • My mistake. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Tropical Storm Virginia, which formed in the West Pacific crossed into the basin at a high latitude." - a comma is needed somewhere in the 2nd half
  • Added a comma before crossed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "resulting in 501 advisories being issued in the East Pacific,[1] and thirty being issued for the Central Pacific" - why the change in number spelling?
  • Fixed. I also noticed a spacing error that I fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "Because of a lack of recon data, a lot of the intensity readings from this season were later thrown out" - you give no indication what that is. Also, "a lot" isn't very encyclopediac, and you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
  • Changed "a lot" to "many" and "thrown out" to "removed".YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The eight named storms forming in August this year also made it the most tropical storms to ever form in a month in the East Pacific since reliable records began.[4]</ref>" - something is wrong there.
  • • Well, I switched the source. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "A ship called the Kollfinn off the coast of Mexico sent a message stating "Tropical storm at 17.0°N, 101.0°W. Bad weather here"." - that is an extremely awkward way to start off a section. Also, off which coast of Mexico?
  • Try my best to reword. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That still doesn't give any context for what happened, and why it is important. What is bad weather? Why is that sentence important to the storm? When did that happen? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "However, it was not until another ship called the James Lykes reported south-southwest winds of 50 mph (80 km/h) on June 20 when the storm was named." - how is that contradictory (per your "However") to the previous sentence? And it's an awkward sentence structure.
  • Try to re-word. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Along with the windspeed, the James Lykes recorded loose organization." - what does that mean? A ship was loosely organized?
  • Reworded, but the wording seems awkward to me. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
    • It doesn't make any sentence still. Why is that important? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • sentence? Do you mean sense? It's important because it gives the reader a context on it's organization. Anyhow, I re-wrote it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Annette's time was short lived, as it made landfall and dissipated near Manzanillo on June 22." - that seems a bit melodramatic, and it lasted two days. That doesn't seem to be that short.
  • Average duration in EPAC is 4 days, and what do you mean by melodramatic? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • By saying "...time was short lived", that's melodramatic. It's more encyclopediac to say that it was short-lived, provided the sources do indicate an unusually short duration. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed sentence altogether. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "The satellite that was orbiting over Annette never took a picture with the storm in view and was usually at the edge. A computerized mosaic showed a spiral vortex with a center over land, which was not helpful because ship reports noted that the surface circulation was 50 mi (80 km) away, over water." - what does that even mean?
  • Condensed, reworded to the best of my ability, and wikilinked jagron. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Better, but it still doesn't make too much sense, given the context of the surrounding sentences. What is important about that sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • • Re-worded slightly, it's important since it gives readers a picture on how difficult it was to track the storm.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The first of a large group of tropical cyclones that developed from ITCZ disturbances this season, a low pressure center in the ITCZ rapidly intensified" - that's somewhat of a sentence fragment. When did it rapidly intensify? Did it meet the definition of that? How can a low pressure area center rapidly intensify? Typically that only applies to tropical cyclones.
  • Used the EPHC wording, rapidly developing. And added a date. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• In Bonny's section, how did warm, moist air cause weakening?
  • It did not, removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "The remnant low from Bonny was noted as having no kinetic energy source at all, causing the forecasters to note that it had a "run down" appearance." - what does that mean?!
  • It had a ragged appearance, reworded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • But the kinetic energy source is random and weird and poorly explained. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Reworded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• " Initially, the intensity when the system became named was estimated at 70 mph (110 km/h), but the Monthly Weather Review, published after the season, revealed that the storm was 50 mph (80 km/h) at the first advisory at storm strength." - that could be written a lot better.
  • Re-wrote it, but I still think it can be much better, the question is how? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
    • Remove one of the "intensity"s and cut " at the first advisory at storm strength". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed to "intensity" to "peak wind speed", and cut that second part . YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "The storm never strengthened past the 50 mph (80 km/h) peak it had reached when it became a storm. The storm would continue uneventfully until July 17, when the storm was estimated to be at its strongest." - so, if it didn't intensify further, how could it be strongest on July 17th?
  • Added last after was and before estimated. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • But it can't really be at peak for more than two days. That's its average intensity, if anything. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Combined with second sentence. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• " the storm began weakening after the cirrus cap got detached" - what does that mean?
  • Re-worded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "the storm began weakening after the was a strong inflow of stratus clouds got detached." - please be more careful when re-wording. It makes just as little sense as before. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Re-worded again. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "After Celeste lost its tropical identity on July 21, the depression had strengthened enough to be upgraded to tropical storm strength and given the name "Diana"" - what depression? The previous sentence doesn't mention a TD. Also, the 2nd portion of the sentence is clunky.
  • It's false information, re-worded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "After Celeste lost its tropical identity on July 21, the system had strengthened enough to be upgraded to tropical storm strength and given the name "Diana"." - what "the system" refers to is unclear. Also, in Diana's section, you have a redlink for rainband. Please fix. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed "the system" to "the former" and repaired the redlink. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The initial intensity set was 60 mph (97 km/h)" - why isn't it rounded? And the infobox says the peak was 50.
  • • It is not rounded because of convert templates, which is something WPTC has been missing for years, and that's what the WP:MOS suggests. The infobox says the peak was 45 knts because that's what HURDAT says. Since I am not a big fan of HURDAT, I switched it. I also wikilink some jagron in this section per WP:WPTC/J and WP:MOS.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The Anco Swan, a ship north of Tropical Storm Diana, indicated that Diana had reached peak intensity around this time and, which was maintained for two days." - avoid redundancy of saying Diana twice
  • Switched. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Then, cool inflow began getting caught in the storm, resulting in weakening." - that could be written better.
  • Re-worded slightly. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "Estelle was a tropical storm that spent most of its life as a depression as a result of a southward shift in trade winds and the ITCZ, which provoked an early weakening and prevented re-intensification." - you shouldn't refer to the life of a storm.
  • Don't get what you mean? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "The new tropical storm would last at that intensity for only 30 hours" - you don't say what intensity
  • 45 knts. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Tropical Storm Estelle was an unusual storm in that it had advisories issued on it in the Central Pacific despite never actually crossing into the area of responsibility." - how is that unusual? And how important is that info? The bit about longitude and operational whatnot seems boring and unnecessary.
  • Changed to notable. It is important since it was the first time it occurred, and the second time a storm had advisories issued by the JHWC/CPHC despite never entering the OR. The other time was in Guillermo 03. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• You never indicate that Gwen developed on the 6th.
  • It occurred on the 5th, not 6th. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Data based on satellite images, plus the ship report, were enough data to upgrade the system to Tropical Storm Gwen." - plus is not a conjunction. Having two "data"s in the same sentence is a redundancy, however.
  • Changed to "and" and removed the second "data". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "and the storm was downgraded to a depression later that day" - what day? There is no indication of the date.
  • August 8. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "with a ship reporting a barometric pressure of 994 millibars (29.4 inHg) from the storm." - you shouldn't use "with... [verb]ing" form, per grammar rules, and the "from the storm" isn't needed.
  • Removed and reworded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• If a ship reported winds of 65 mph, why is the peak listed as 50 mph?
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "On August 20, two disturbances were found along the area at positions 13°N, 96°W and 10°N, 106°W, the first found via satellite and the second by ship report." - exact lat/lon locations are typically frowned upon in the WPTC. Why don't you just indicate that two areas of disturbed weather formed southwest of Mexico?
  • Incorporated your suggestion. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Ship reports on August 21 led to the disturbance to be deemed a tropical storm. " - weird wording.
  • Re-worded. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

All of that is only through Hyacinth. I suggest that the article be delisted as a GA and that this go through peer review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Would restore to this version help at all?. As I said on IRC, I admit I could have made it worse? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Well, I think it's a mixed bag. I think portions were improved, but other parts were just as bad in that previous version. In fact, yea, several of the comments I made stem from that original version. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for you thoughts. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed your concerns through Iva's section. I also made several wikilink tweaks per WP:MOS (wikilinks are by section, not article). Is the article any better now? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I get to the 2nd half of the article, please check all of the units and make sure they are formatted and rounded properly. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Going on.

• "an area of rain-producing clouds" - all rain is produced from clouds (except for the supernatural kind).
• "On August 20, two disturbances formed southwest of Mexico, the first was found via satellite imagery and the second was found by ship report. The disturbance further west developed into Tropical Storm Iva while the other disturbance ultimately became Hurricane Joanne." - why do you mention both storms in Iva's section? Surely the Joanne stuff belongs in Joanne's section.
• "Ship reports on August 21 led to the disturbance to be upgraded into a tropical storm." - it's kinda ambiguous as to what storm you're talking about here.
• The Annette section is now practically nonsensical. Also, the article still mentions the odd kinetic energy bit in Bonny, which doesn't make much sense at all.
• "Various Labor Day swimmers were also swept up by waves triggered by Liza. A total of 261 swimmers were reported swept in Newport Beach and 47 in Zuma Beach; all of which were rescued" - poor wording
• "and a worker in Texas was injured when the roof of a plant they were working at collapsed from accumulated rainfall due to the interaction between Naomi and a frontal system over the Gulf Coast." - try and reword. "they" implies more than one person.
• TD 4 is contradictory, since it says it formed to the west of Hawaii, and then entered the CPAC two days later. That could only happen if it moved eastward.

I'm just going to continue with a broad review, since there's no need to waste my time when the article is still clearly lacking in many regards.

• The article seems to go out of the way to indicate what data source said what, with regards to each storm. For example, what ships reported, and what satellite reports indicated, are given favor to what the storm actually did. Now, the prose can clearly be supplemented by the mentions of ships and whatnot, but it shouldn't be so forced as it is now.
• I still notice several instances when the first unit is rounded and the second is not. That should be fixed.
• Unisys should not be used as a source. You should cite the original data.
• Several of the newspaper refs have no dates, which warrant them practically useless without a link.
• There is no indication that ref 18 has anything to do with Pauline.
• There is far too much overlinking.
• A thorough copyedit is needed. There are far too many sentences that are borderline sentences.
• There are some fullstop problems in Virginia's section.
• The article is far too jargony. Here are examples of where the sentence just doesn't make sense in the context of the article.
• " At that time, Tropical Storm Virginia held the record for the northernmost tropical storm formation in the Pacific basin." - I question the validity of that source.
  • " A computerized mosaic showed a spiral vortex with the center over land, which was unhelpful in tracking the storm because ship reports noted that the circulation was over water"
  • "The remnant low of Bonny had no kinetic energy, causing the forecasters to note that it had a ragged appearance on satellite imagery"
  • "The storm would continue uneventfully until July 17, when stratus inflow was starting to become entrained in the atmospheric circulation and, shortly after peaking, the storm began to weaken after strong inflow of cool air to the northwest."
  • "On August 8, the storm had developed an eye in a tightly wound spiral overcast and became a hurricane while moving westward" - (overcast?)
  • "The feeder bands, which helped the hurricane to reach its peak intensity, continued to persist over warm water until August 11, when the cirrus cap over Fernanda became uncoupled to the east, thus exposing the west side of the storm."
  • "There was no activity associated with the disturbance until August 16, when a circular overcast broke away from the front."
  • "Forming from an ITCZ"
  • "The final storm of the season developed from unknown origins, although there is a possibility that anticyclogenesis over Mexico that occurred after the dissipation of Simone may have played a part in the formation." - (how would that help)
• The storm names needs a source for the V and W name.

I'm sorry, but there are too many problems. I'm delisting this article as a GA. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)