# Talk:Hurricane Humberto (2007)

I though this was strongly worded and worth mentioning in the article: 
"BASED ON OPERATIONAL ESTIMATES...HUMBERTO STRENGTHENED FROM A 30 KT
DEPRESSION AT 15Z YESTERDAY TO A 75 KT HURRICANE AT 09Z THIS
MORNING...AN INCREASE OF 45 KT IN 18 HOURS.  TO PUT THIS
DEVELOPMENT IN PERSPECTIVE...NO TROPICAL CYCLONE IN THE HISTORICAL
RECORD HAS EVER REACHED THIS INTENSITY AT A FASTER RATE NEAR
LANDFALL.  IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW...SOMEDAY...WHY THIS HAPPENED."
That is from the Tropical Storm Humberto Discussion Statement #6 
Tfelts 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Only three other Atlantic storms, NHC said in another discussion, strengthened from depression to hurricane in 18 hours. I have found those three in an Associated Press report: Blanche in '69, Harvey in '81 and Alberto in '82. Alberto looked suspicious to me when I looked at the best track. Looked like 24 hours, but best track has some lag time. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really trust that AP link. According to the best track, Abby from 1960 went straight from a TD to a hurricane, and Alberto in 1982 did indeed take 24 hours. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Harvey is also wrong. It, too, took 24 hours from what I'm seeing. Blanche, however, seems correct. Jake52 My island 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Trust me the hurricane took less than 24 hours. You may wonder what makes me know. I woke up to it. At 6 o clock at night I watched the local news and it specifically said that it was a tropical depression. Then it just strengthened and gave us a slap in the face. Trust me sir it was much less than 24 hours.Bccards 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bccards13 (talk • contribs) 

Just so you all know, I'm coordinating with NHC on the inland track of Humberto.  The position stated in our last HPC advisory was a different area of low pressure.  Once I get their e-mail, I'll make the appropriate change to the track to keep it in line with what they will soon publish on the web.  Thegreatdr 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  (good coverage of sources, but may need more in lead, apart from that, they were excellent placed) b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.
 (no edits wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Here is a greater analysis of my findings:

I can find no original research, however the lead contains no references, but as there are no major citings, I am willing to view it as a minor. Y
All images were appropriately tagged. Y
There was a use of images, which helped improve the readability which was already goodY
Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me. Y
All references used were independent and reliable. Y
There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)Y
The prose was very good, and certainly appropriate. Y
I am therefore willing to  pass this article. Well done to all involved. Regards, — Rudget Contributions 12:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I delisted this RFA because of the cites and the grammar. miranda 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
What does "cites" and "the grammar" mean? I'm sorry, but you'll have to say a bit more than that to justify delisting an article. Gimmetrow 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Some citations were not formatted according to WP:CITE and there were punctuation errors. However, this has been addressed, and I have re-promoted this article. miranda 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this just beat by Oscar? 2607:FEA8:3DA1:9100:991F:8BB4:CFA8:B001 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lets wait for post analysis to be performed before judging any records as for example it could be that the NHC should have initiated advisories earlier.Jason Rees (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)