# Talk:Hurricane Norma (1981)

The beginning of the impact section is confusing, since it's unclear what Lidia did and what Norma did. I agree that Lidia should get a mention, but it shouldn't get too much. Some non-Google news sources would be good. Given how high the rainfall was, I'm sure there are more sources for US impact. As for Mexico, probably not. It needs a copyedit, as some of the writing is sub-par. I started, but there was a bit too much for me to try and tackle. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still confusing what was Lidia and what was Norma. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried my best to clarify what was Norma and Lidia. There are currently five non-newspaper references (excluding the MWR summary). YE  Tropical Cyclone 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this article the elephant in Gainsville was reported dead, then later found alive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.128.53.224 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 

(copied from our conversation on IRC - strike what was done)

You definitely need more proof that the tornado caused $25M in damage; tornadoes are never that costly, and NCDC is very minimal in its information, so much that's bordering unreliable in this instance. Perhaps the $25M is the overall damage total in the US? For that matter, try to find any other damage total in Texas and Oklahoma
The overall damage total from winds and outbreak (according to the NDCD search) was $28.5 million.

"Early on October 8, a tropical depression had developed" - few problems. Where did the depression come from? Where did it form? And most importantly (grammar wise), why "had developed"? The usage of past-perfect tense is awkward, not to mention redundant
I think I fixed it, not 100% sure though.
"Initially, the storm moved west-northwest, but it turned to the northwest six hours after forming" - is that important at all that it changed from west-northwest to northwest? It's so minor, really. What's more important (and missing) is why it moved the way it did
Did not say in the MWR summary. YE  Tropical Cyclone 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Over sea surface temperatures of 28°C, the storm intensified into Tropical Storm Norma at 0600 UTC time." - the 28ºC should have a Fahrenheit conversion, and the F should be first with C in parenthesis (similar to doing miles first, then km in parenthesis). The name shouldn't be italicized, and saying "UTC time" is horrible redundant, given UTC means Coordinated Universal Time. So it would be "Time time". Worse, you don't say the day when it became a TS
 Done

"Continuing to intensify, a well-defined eye soon became visible by via satellites." - how soon? And "visible by satellites" - what does that mean?
"By midday on October 9 the winds had reached 50 mph (85 km/h) and on 1800 UTC October 9, the storm was upgraded into a hurricane." - the midday on October 9 part is extraneous, since we already know it is continuing to intensify. The 50 mph means nothing
 Done, I removed the "continuing to intensify" part

"Upon reaching hurricane strength, the storm began to rapidly intensify[1]; it reached Category 2 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale six hours after attaining hurricane strength" - few problems. The word "hurricane" appears three times in that sentence, and "hurricane strength" occurs twice. Also, "to rapidly intensify" is improper English, as it is a split infinitive (look it up)
 Done

"Later that that, the storm reached major hurricane status, a storm with winds of 111 mph (179 km/h) or higher. [2]." - aside from the "that that" and the double period, you should probably clarify a MH is a C3 on the SSHS, since you've already introduced the scale and it would be consistent with what's in the lede
"The storm reached it's peak of 125 mph (205 km/h) at 1800 UTC October 10" - where did it peak, and try and find the grammar error in there
When did the storm actually dissipate?
 Done

"This prompted evacuations 5,000 people, and limited the death toll of Hurricane Norma to one person, a fisherman drowned when his boat capsized in the storm." - so did Lidia being in the region prompt the evacuations? Why are Lidia's damage/deaths mentioned at all? And "evacuations 5,000 people" is poor writing, sry
Fixed the evacuations part.

"Six soldiers were guarding a government helicopter, five of which were washed away during a flash flood. " - wait, were five helicopters or soldiers washed away?
Fixed, so  Done

"Agriculture was disrupted, and cattle were killed. Norma caused at least $24 million (1981 USD) dollars in crop damage and [1] the highest Mexican rainfall was 10.9 in (280 mm) in Plomosas/Rosario, Mexico" - you could've organized that better. The former sentence is very stubby, and could use more content, but the second sentence is very bloated with two disconnected pieces of info. Also, try and find a link for the area w/ the highest rain
"Torrential rains caused serious flooding north of Mazatlan.[4] In addition, Mazatlan was flooded as well as ten nearby towns." - again, sorta awkward writing. Mazatlan is mentioned twice in four words, and the two sentences essentially cover the same piece of info (the rains caused flooding)
"This caused two rives to reach flood-stage." - which two?
Clarified
"A total of four people were killed, three occurred when floodwater swept their car off the road in Fort Worth" - there are two active verbs, please fix
I believe I fixed this
"Nearby, flooding forced thousands of people to evacuate their homes, including 1,000 evacuated in Lindsay and Breckenridge" - you use "evacuate" twice
 Done
"In addition, Ceder Creek " - is it really Ceder Creek? Or is it Cedar
Gainseville, or Gainesville?
 Done
"In eastern Kansas light rain fell, peaking at at .7 in (18 mm) near Perry Lake" - not according to HPC. Over 3 inches fell on the map
Noted time frame. YE  Tropical Cyclone
"Due to the damage from the hurricane, the Salvation Army disaster units where sent through the devastated area" - where or were? If where, the sentence is a fragment. And you should clarify the last paragraph is in the US
--♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This really should be used. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Norma (1981)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A few of the issues from the "Todo" section of the talk page have not been resolved, they are:
"'Early on October 8, a tropical depression had developed' - few problems. Where did the depression come from? Where did it form? And most importantly (grammar wise), why 'had developed'? The usage of past-perfect tense is awkward, not to mention redundant"
I addressed this a long time ago.
"'Torrential rains caused serious flooding north of Mazatlan.[4] In addition, Mazatlan was flooded as well as ten nearby towns.' - again, sorta awkward writing. Mazatlan is mentioned twice in four words, and the two sentences essentially cover the same piece of info (the rains caused flooding)"
I knew there was one issue I had not addressed. Well, I think I've addressed this now.
"'Agriculture was disrupted, and cattle were killed. Norma caused at least $24 million (1981 USD) dollars in crop damage and [1] the highest Mexican rainfall was 10.9 in (280 mm) in Plomosas/Rosario, Mexico' - you could've organized that better. The former sentence is very stubby, and could use more content, but the second sentence is very bloated with two disconnected pieces of info. Also, try and find a link for the area w/ the highest rain"
Um, the area is Plomosas/Rosario, Mexico. I re-organized this a while ago inf I re-call correctly.
You are still missing that day that Norma intensified into a tropical storm.
Fixed,
"'By midday on October 9 the winds had reached 50 mph (85 km/h) and on 1800 UTC October 9, the storm was upgraded into a hurricane."' - the midday on October 9 part is extraneous, since we already know it is continuing to intensify. The 50 mph means nothing"
Removed the continuing to intensify part
"'This prompted evacuations of 5,000 people, and limited the death toll of Hurricane Norma to one person, a fisherman drowned when his boat capsized in the storm.' - so did Lidia being in the region prompt the evacuations? Why are Lidia's damage/deaths mentioned at all?"
I have several other issues:
Could you possibly get an image for the infobox, there is an image on Norma in the MWR. In fact, there is an image available for every tropical cyclone in the 1981 PHS, yet only Beatriz has one.
No, as I don't upload images on Wikipedia, because of potential WP:C violation.  However, ill ask someone on Wikipedia to upload the image.
Actually, I will take the liberty to upload an image of Norma. BTW, those images in the MWR are part of NOAA, so they are in the public domain.--12george1 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The lede should be likely more in-depth about the impact, like for example, there should be a reason as to why "Norma caused $24 million in crop damage and one death in Mexico."
Expanded.
Missing inflation templates, I know about this discussion, but all of these money figures have changed significantly (even $25,000). For example, the total damage from Norma was $74 million in 1981, but in 2011, it would be $178.3 million.
Ill keep it out untill further consensus to b eon the safe side.
"well-defined eye became visible by via satellite imagery." - Erase either the word "by" or "via".
 Done
"The heavy rainfall caused two rives" - missing the letter 'r' in "rivers".
 Done
In the references, Ft. Worth is misspelled (ref. #6).
Fixed
In references #4 and #8, the author should be "United Press International"; likewise, the author of reference #7 and #12 should be Associated Press.
Fixed those you mentioed a few more refs, that had no authors as well. YE  Tropical Cyclone 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I guess this article is good enough to pass. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)