Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Featured articleHurricane John (1994) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starHurricane John (1994) is part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. It is also part of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 11, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
September 23, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
November 7, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
November 7, 2008Good topic removal candidateKept
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconWeather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific / Western Pacific FA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Template:WP1.0

Longest Lived Hurricane

NOAA says this is in fact the case [1]. They make no mention of Pancho. The disturbance stages are included in that storm's best track, which may be why there is a discrepancy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pancho? 

ThatDudeThatLovesRollerCoasters (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Some kind of stucture...maybe a separate "records" section, I dunno. Jdorje 02:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's lacking any sources or an external links section! Jdorje 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

The most interesting part is the ACE of this storm. It was a long lived cat 5 hurricane. Maybe the hurricane with highest ACE. juan andrés 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Accumulated Cyclone Energy#Historical_ACE_data and talk:Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy/EPac_by_ACE. — jdorje (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That proves me I'm wrong. Typhoon John had the 3rd biggest ACE overall. But the biggest East Pacific ACE. Thank you, really I was curious for the info. juan andrés 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that John was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Note also that the Nancy ACE is overinflated because it's taken from the advisory data (Nancy was credited with 215mph winds). So probably John ranks 2nd. — jdorje (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
San Ciriaco had an ACE higher than 73, which, according to the above tabulation, would be larger than John. 141.161.119.206 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Class

Call me a bit biased, but I'm upping this one to A class since it's under consideration for a FAC. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:13 UTC

No problem, as I was coming to do that myself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got another one! Great job Cuivienen. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia

There is a variable with Ophelia's record: the disturbance stage is included in the best track. I don't know if that would reduce the distance it is estimated to have traveled because I don't know if the disturbance stage was included in the measurement but it could be an X-factor with regards to that record. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the best data we have gives Ophelia an edge on John. If we could dig up a report on Ophelia, we could use that to check the data. —Cuiviénen 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPac storm history

WPac storm history is really lacking. Not a single use of the JTWC ATCR - it's important because the JTWC failed miserably operationally with John (see 1994 Pacific typhoon season#Typhoon John) – Chacor 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a separate section on forecasting difficulties. I don't feel it really belongs in the storm history itself, and the storm history in the WPac was uneventful to say the least. —Cuiviénen 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John's lowest pressure

@Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: @Yellow Evan: @Hurricanehink: @Jason Rees: @Typhoon2013: @Jasper Deng: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994/john/public/tcp2309z.gif

I know that this is operational data, but should we take it into account? ABC paulista (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have provided a source, I believe this should be the minimum pressure for John and should be clearly stated in the article and its infobox. Just check with other users just in case they have something to say. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the best track for some reason or another so I'd be hesitant to include it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be given a mention in the text of the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add that in, with a source. Also if that's the case, and to note, then John would be the strongest storm in the 1994 PHS since Gilma had only 920 hPa. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: @Hurricanehink: This might be a problem and I might rv my own edit. If John's pressure was 910mbar estimated (in that source), then therefore it would be the strongest TC in the CPac basin, beating Ioke by 5mbar. We need to do some rewording in the "Records" section. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A record like this needs to be verified with the NHC/CPHC since it's not explicitly in HURDAT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Sorry I accidentally pinged the wrong person. Anyways, what should we do now? Do we just leave it? Should we discuss this with other users? Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013: Nothing should be done with the article for now. Next step would be to email the NHC/CPHC to verify if the pressure is reasonable or if there's a reason it's excluded from HURDAT. I'll ask around at the NHC and see if anyone knows what's up, though. I suspect that it's simply all non-observed pressures being excluded but we have to be certain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: @Typhoon2013: @Jasper Deng: In this case, would be wiser to ask CPHC directly about this source, since that the cited advisory came from Honolulu, and like I and @Jason Rees: showed for Cyclonebiskit, there are many discrepancies between NHC and CPHC best track anda data. ABC paulista (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Yeah. Try contact them. The problem is that when I contact some agencies like BoM and PAGASA, they don't reply/message you back. :( Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I think those pressures were rough estimates given operationally. Not really analyzed thoroughly enough to be included in HURDAT since they all appear to be in 10 millibar increments. Supportstorm (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Supportstorm: To be honest, I don't trust HURDAT when talking about CPAC data. That's why I prefer to check with CPHC first before doing any judgement. ABC paulista (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane John (1994). 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:

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) 23:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane John (1994) → Hurricane John – Very prominent John since it's one of the longest living tropical cyclones worldwide. And, even the 2006 page is much more larger in bytes, i'm pretty sure that this John IS a primary topic. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose no benefit to readers in removing the year of a regular event, and not the only Hurricane John. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more Hurricane Johns than this i admit! And, reason why i want to change it (even it would not benefit it) because it was a very prominent hurricane (much more damaging or much more intense, causing the popularity of that storm) and beats any other hurricanes with this name, causing this hurricane to be stand out from other hurricanes with this name. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 13:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – seriously? Hurricane John (2006) was much more significant. There's no clear primary topic here, but 2006's John is closer. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with the fact it stands out. Yes, it's the longest lived system, but one could argue the 2006 version, which is one of the more destructive 2000's EPAC storms, was more significant. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There were numerous "Johns" at the EPAC and, although 1994's one was the most intense, it was neither the most damaging nor the most fatal one. In the Tropical Cyclones Project, when there are muliple storm's article with the same name, the primary topic is usually defined by the one that caused the retirement of the name, but John is still present in the EPAC name list. So, it's fair to say that there's no clear primary topic yet. Finally, in the Tropical Cyclones Project damage and death toll are bigger criteria for significance than intensity and lifespan. ABC paulista (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infobox winds

@MarioProtIV: In this kind of Infobox, it is only meant to show the winds when the system attained its peak intensity, and in John's case, its peak intensity was under CPHC's area of responsability, not JMA's one. Also, it would be confusing for the reader to understand that both 1-min and 10-min are reflective to different basins and different since we also apply unnofficial JTWC winds to non-NWS agencies' areas of resopnsabilities. That's why in all mutiple-basin storms, we only add the peak intensity of them, regadless the basin where it achieved it. So infoboxes about storms like Gay, Paka, Oliwa, Dora, Leon–Eline and others don't include winds and pressure of the other basins that they travelled. ABC paulista (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing that out :P --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane John (1994). 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:

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) 08:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this 2006 FA as part of the FA sweeps to determine of older FAs still meet WP:WIAFA.

  • A wikilinking review is needed (eg Category 5).
  • One independent news report, and all the other sources weather sources? Odd considering the significance described in the lead. Not mentioned in any other general news or books? Staff Writer (August 26, 1994). "Island braces for Hurricane John". Gainesville Sun. p. 4. Retrieved December 12, 2009. All other sources are government weather-related ?
  • Citations should be checked for completeness, eg "Cold and Warm Episodes by Season". August 4, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2014 all citations need a publisher.
  • Update (still true? as of when ? The sources are 1995 and 2004.) "Hurricane John, also known as Typhoon John, was both the longest-lasting and the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever observed. "
  • A copyedit for redundancies would be helpful. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for redundancy reducing exercises. Samples only:
    • Over the course of its existence, John followed a 7,165-mile (13,280-km) path from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and back to the central Pacific, lasting 31 days in total. --> -->
      • John lasted 31 days and followed a 7,165-mile (13,280-km) path from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and back to the central Pacific.
    • The origins of Hurricane John were thought by the United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) to be from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa on July 25, 1994.[3][4] The wave subsequently moved across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean without distinction, ---> (the wave could not have moved across the ocean before it originated off the coast of Africa)
      • The United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) thought that Hurricane John originated from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa on July 25, 1994.[3][4] The wave subsequently moved across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean without distinction,

I did not uncover any indications of too close paraphrasing or copyvio or copying within Wikipedia without attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_John_(1994)&oldid=1058216179

Leave a Reply