# Talk:September 2023 New York floods

This seems to be apart of a larger Climate Change Topic and I think something can be said about it here in relation to what’s happened last year. 75.211.14.223 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good start:
Here's an article from Reuters about the connection to climate change and this becoming "a new normal"
The Independent says flooding is blamed on climate change.
The New York Times states "'This changing weather pattern is the result of climate change, and the sad reality is our climate is changing faster than our infrastructure can respond', said Rohit Aggarwala, commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection." and "The scenes of water rushing over roads and sidewalks were similar to those in 2021 when Hurricane Ida inundated the city and left 11 people dead in Queens. That storm was a warning sign, said Daniel A. Zarrilli, a special adviser to Columbia University on the institution’s climate and sustainability practices."
I am happy to work on this. Any other thoughts about whether is a good start?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I added the September 2023 New York floods#Climate change section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been dozens of media articles since Tom Parsons article was published in May 2023 about increased flood risk in New York City. I haven't found news reporting about it directly related to this floods. Should it be added in the article anyway? NeonSpectre (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you link the article here? I had not heard about this article from Tom Parsons until you mentioned it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
News reports about the study warning of increased flood risk were of varying quality. The Guardian published a headline that "New York City is sinking due to weight of its skyscrapers" on May 19. Tom Parsons made additional comments to AFP that were published in June.
For anyone interested in the study itself:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003465
For the Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/19/new-york-city-sinking-skyscrapers-climate-crisis
For Parsons subsequent comments to AFP:
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-york-weight.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonSpectre (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Indented for readability. See Help:Talk_pages#Indentation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
My take is that it would be better to cover that in another article like Extreme weather that could be linked in articles about specific climate change / flooding events. Perhaps a See also - or within the body of the article.
Or, perhaps an article specifically about flooding due to climate change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:September 2023 New York floods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 23:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This one caught my eye. I remembered reading about it, but I missed experiencing it by a month. 

Is the article title appropriate? It also affected New Jersey, where there was a state of emergency.
" across portions of the New York metropolitan area and areas in New York City" - it seems like it's redundant mentioning the metro area and the city
The lead doesn't seem to summarize the article enough. You go from mentioning the flood in the first sentence to the state of emergency, but don't say anything about a summary of the effects. How many buildings were flooded? Any power outages? Any major roadways closed? Flights canceled? Those are common aspects of natural disasters that came to mind, and might require a bit more research.
"The heavy rainfall was caused by a stalled low-pressure area as showers and thunderstorms developed on September 29." - this seems like an afterthought considering where it is in the lead. I think the entire lead could use a re-write/expansion to better reflect the information of the article.
Yeah, the lead needs a fundamental re-write. I unfortunately didn't think of doing so prior to this review. I'll get to that soon! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done, re-wrote the lead! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Meteorological synopsis
A moderate risk of excessive rainfall was issued by the Weather Prediction Center, and a flood watch was issued for portions of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey
When did this happen? Also, this sounds more like "preparations" than a meteorological history of the event. You should probably give a bit more background into Ophelia, when that formed and dissipated, and how that affected the region first. Brooklyn had 2.8 inches of rain during Ophelia. Weather Channel covers the met history a bit. You have that the floods were from a strengthening cold front, but the weather channel says it was a trough, as does NCDC - "An inverted trough extending from a low pressure system over the Western Atlantic provided a focus for persistent heavy convective rain to continually develop."
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"Favorable precipitable water values around 1.6 inches" - can you explain this simply? Also, you don't have metric conversion for 1.6 inches.
 Done, I removed the "1.6 inches" to reduce confusion regarding the PWAT (precipitable water values), it already states that it was in the favorable range so it seemed unnecessary. Additionally, the meteorological synopsis might also need a re-write as well. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles don't usually mention knots, usually just mph and km/h.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Impact
There is a lot from NCDC that could be used to expand the article. 

"The National Weather Service in New York City issued a considerable flash flood warning for Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens as more than 4 inches (100 mm) of rain fell throughout the region." - the "more than 4 inches" bothers me a bit. The first sentence should mention the peak rainfall.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
"Of that total, 8.05 inches (204 mm) of rain fell there on just September 29, setting the preliminary record for the highest rainfall in one day." - what do you mean highest rainfall in one day? Is it still preliminary? For what it's worth, NOAA confirmed that the 8.65 inches of rainfall at JFK surpassed Hurricane Donna as causing the greatest September rainfall total. You could specify that it's for the month, although it also might be the highest rainfall ever in New York City on one day.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"Sewers and roads were overwhelmed by flooding in Hoboken, New Jersey, and the mayor of Hoboken, Ravinder Bhalla, declared a state of emergency." - no need to mention the city name twice.

 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
"Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten Island were closed indefinitely." - the "closed indefinitely" is odd. How long was it closed?
Couldn't find a source for the length of the closure, so just removed the "indefinitely" part. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"From the floodwaters, 28 people were rescued." - this should probably be mentioned earlier.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph about rainfall totals should also be earlier, since that's what caused all of the impacts.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Flooding impacts in New Jersey aren't mentioned.
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The floods contributed to New York City's wettest September since 1882 - source
 Done! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath
" Prospect Park Zoo was closed indefinitely." - again, "indefinitely" is an odd word. How long was it closed?
It's currently closed according to the zoo's website, but I'm avoiding use of primary sources in the article and basing it off a news source from January 2024. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should have a section for global warming link. I think that could be a part of "meteorological synopsis". Also the Daniel A. Zarrilli mention doesn't seem that important, it's more about Ida. But speaking of, maybe link Ida in the "See also"?
The last Global warming part has only ' and not " when ending the quote, so I'm note sure if it's a quote or not. Also, if Ryan Maue is quoting someone, then just quote the original person.
I just removed the entire section for the global warming link, since it seemed unnecessary. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The article needs some work, but I do think that it's doable to fix. Please let me know Tails Wx (talk · contribs) if you have any questions of the above. Thanks for working on this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  23:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, I think I've addressed all your comments and concerns! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of all of that! Regarding the article title, I suppose there isn't really better article title, considering New Jersey to Connecticut is New York. So just one last comment. 

"A weak low-pressure area developed off the East Coast of the United States, absorbing the remnants of Tropical Storm Ophelia." when? That's kinda crucial for the MH.
Also, in general, I'm not sure that the article explains how there was $100 million in damage. Like, the article only mentions the word "damage" when it refers to the Connecticut part and then the aftermath for Woodhull, so it doesn't mention any damage in New York City proper. It seems like something that's pretty major that's missing. Like, is there any estimate for a number of houses flooded? If that $100 million was in Connecticut, then I might suggest changing the article title, but I imagine that the damage was in New York City proper. 
♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, got both of your comments above here and here! I did find an Insurance Journal source that states Aon Benfield estimating the damages in the New York City area. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate all of that, and the article certainly is a lot better now. It's just, the reason I'm being picky is that you don't mention any kind of impacts to people's homes. Usually during floods, people are affected in many ways. You mention subway/airport floods, as well as the schools, but nothing about people's homes, which is a bit of a comprehensive problem in my opinion, and is my main sticking point right now. Here is a reference that might be able to help out, which mentions six people being rescued from flooded basements. That way you can at least mention homes at least once in the article. Also, I don't believe all of Woodhall Hospital was evacuated as you alluded to - this article mentions that 120 people being evacuated. So that's something else you could expand on a bit. Also also, you could expand on the Prospect Park Zoo damage, which this article says was "in the millions", with 25 feet of water in the basement destroying power systems. That should be added to the impact section, so the aftermath mentioning the zoo being closed makes sense. I think adding these three sources would help flesh out the article enough, so its impacts are better put into context. I hope you don't mind, the article is nearly there, but I have high standards :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink, no worries; after all, we're getting this article to GA, right? Anyway, I've added the information about the impacts to homes and apartments here. I held off on adding the WSWS source you linked above because I felt like it was unreliable in terms of reliability. I also added the Prospect Park Zoo information as well. For the icing on the cake, I also added a bit to the aftermath section! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, good call with the CBS source getting an exact number. I'm happy to pass, thanks so much for all of that additional work! The article is certified "good"! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, no problem! Since you're done with your review, can ya also update the article's talk page to update that it is a GA and not a current GAN? Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 18:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Oops, yea, it's official now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)