# Talk:Hurricane Cosme (2013)

Reason for inclusion of page
Helps to improve the completeness of information available on the 2013 Pacific Hurricane Season
Cosme is one of the few casualty producing hurricanes of the 2013 season that did not yet have its own article.  
Various users on the 2013 Pacific Hurricane Season expressed interest in giving Hurricane Cosme its own Wikipedia article.

You did an excellent job of presenting the fact and details of this storm in a well thought-out article. You were able to write about a rather wide breadth of information, rather than merely discussing its path and effects on the damaged areas. Simultaneously, you did well to tie in all of your information to the main topic, Hurricane Cosme, so that your article did not go astray. I like how you broke down your article both geographically and even to a certain extent chronologically. This organization made your possibly confusing information, more easily understood. Another aspect that lead to clear, concise interpretations by readers was your use of vivid accounts that assisted the facts of this hurricane article. These accounts as well as your plentiful use of dates, numbers, and citations do a great job of backing up all your article has to offer. Another plus is the neutrality of your article, since it simply states the fact and you successfully avoid giving any sort of your opinion.
One suggestion that I will add is that you clarify some of the abbreviations and names of the organizations that you include in this article. For the most part you do a good job of providing links for names unfamiliar to the average reader, but some proper nouns such as UTC, National Civil Protection System, and CLIPER are left unidentified in the way that either an explanation or external or internal link could clarify. Another minor, nit-picky suggestion that I would make is that you clean up some of your sentences in regards to some minor typos. Once you accomplish this small task, I think that your article will flow much more smoothly.
A couple other, perhaps more trivial, suggestions of mine would to be careful about repetition. For instance, you say that "Hurricane Cosme was the third named tropical cyclone of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season," when you open the article. Then in your first sentence of the section entitled Initial Information, you say that "Hurricane Cosme was a the third named tropical cyclone of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." Now I realize that may be extremely picky, since it could be permissible to repeat what is in your introduction/summary; so I will leave it up to you as to what to do with that. Lastly, if you were interested in adding to your article, maybe you could say how Mexico learned from this natural disaster, or if they did not respond in any way cause it was merely a category one hurricane at its peak, then you could say that as well. That is just a thought. 
However, as I said in the beginning, I think that you did a superb job on your article. Everything from your headings and pictures to the detailed accounts and numerical dates justify the good quality of your article.
Schmidt1510 (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I think you did a very good job creating this article from scratch and organizing it into different sections that make sense within the context of each other. You were very detailed and included any necessary information I would think should be included in an article on a hurricane. I really liked that you were able to create the picture on the page with all of the most important details on the storm, so anybody who was looking for just those major details would have quick access to them without having to read the entire article. It was also good that you noticed there was already a page on Wikipedia that had a section on Hurricane Cosme(2013 Hurricane season)and made sure to include much more information then was already included in that small section.
There were a few small things you can fix that I believe would help the flow of your page and for it to appear more like an actual encyclopedia article. First, just make sure to watch your wording. Most of your writing is good, but be sure not to repeat specific words too often after each other(repeated use of the word "also", for example), as it just does not sound professional in my opinion. A few times I believe you might have just had some typing mistakes("is" instead of "it", "of" instead of "a"), so just be sure to triple check your article for grammar problems before it is posted. Also, be sure to watch your capitalization in both section headings and the rest of the writing.  For headings, whether you decide to capitalize every word or not, just make sure to be consistent. Your organization for the most part is good, but I feel all of your sections are in chronological order except for the last one("Planning, Preparation, and Forecasting"), so maybe consider moving it? Just an idea. All in all, I think you did a great job, so with a little fixing up your article should be good to go!
Fmeyers30 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fmeyers30 gave you excellent feedback and I recommend applying it to the article. This is an impressive draft for a new article! Your writing clearly describes the hurricane and you have several references. Improvement can be made but adding more peer-reviewed scientific references and governmental materials to support findings and ideas. The Lead section is strong, but there are missing words, random capitalizations, repetitive phrasing, and formatting issues that detract from the information. Review the entire article for similar issues. Some organizational issues in the Mexico Impacts section- it may be better to add subsections here to improve flow. Add more emphasis on the ecological effects as they relate to disturbance ecology and support with appropriate references. The connect to society is clear. The draft is good and I look forward to have it evolves. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Cosme (2013)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

' the storm system formed from a tropical wave hundreds of miles south of Manzanillo, Colima" - it's more accurate (and international) if you removed "hundreds of miles"
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"Convection – shower and thunderstorm activity – became steadily concentrated around the low-level center and spiral banding became evident; following a series of satellite and microwave images,[6] the system became Tropical Depression Three-E at 12:00 UTC on June 23 while located about 500 mi (800 km) south of Manzanillo, Colima." - this should be two sentences, no semicolon. And wording could be tighter
Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"According to the NOAA, Hurricane Cosme was well forecast. Several global weather models predicted the formation of the storm system about a week prior to the storm's formation. A "high chance of formation" was issued 36 hours prior to the genesis of the storm system. Official forecast track errors were lower than average for forecasts within the previous five year average. However, CLIPER errors were larger than average. Official intensity forecasts by the NHC were more accurate than the average accuracy for predictions within the last five years. There were no warnings issued within the United States as a result of Hurricane Cosme." - is any of this needed for such an uneventful storm? I feel that way about the whole article, but I won't question its existence here. That can be debated later
Removed--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"However, the small population located on the island caused damage to be minimal." - the population caused damage?
Actually, I removed that altogether. I don't think it's surprising that not much happened with gusts of 42 mph--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"A total of 50 homes were damaged because of the storm as a result of flooding, specifically the overflow of streams in the Tlapa River." --> "Storm flooding damaged 50 homes, mainly due to the overflown streams of the Tlapa River." - tighten the wording.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"During the storm the port of Manzanillo and Mazatlan closed down for small craft operation." - isn't this more preparation?
Yes--12george1 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"In Colima, coastal flooding induced by a storm surge damaged 34 tourist facilities, and possibly one death, according to the Secretary of State Economic Development. Most of these facilities were located in the municipalities of Tecomny and Armory." - I moved the wording around, but this section could certainly be tighter/better
"Several injuries and three deaths were attributed to the storm, two of which occurred in Guerrero." - up to this point, you've already mentioned one death and one possible death. If either of these two were in Guerrero, then there is a problem, because the content is confusing to an outsider. The problem with having so many sentences is that it's tough to follow. Try making the impact and preps section more compact. It'll do wonders for the flow of the article (which currently is too verbose and bloated).
In response to this comment and the one above, I've compacted the preps and impact.--12george1 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Cosme (2013). 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://web.archive.org/web/20140413145023/http://portal.sinavef.gob.mx/documentos/AlertaClimatica/Alerta_Cosme.pdf to http://portal.sinavef.gob.mx/documentos/AlertaClimatica/Alerta_Cosme.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)