Talk:Hurricane Ava

Todo

Combine some of the many paragraphs and add a satellite pic (which was in the MWR), for starters. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're fast at rating! ;) Which paragraphs do you think should be combined? To me, each discusses one thing, which is what a paragraph is intended to do. Also, the MWR is a copyrighted publication. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even rate it! :) The MWR might be copyrighted, but the images are a product of NOAA, which is PD. Nine paragraph for the last section is excessive, given most are one or two liners. Perhaps merge the third through eighth paragraphs? Some of the writing could be better; terms like "life" and "really" should be avoided IMO, but the article is a really good start. All that's needed is some cleaning up. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, Juliancolton's fast! ;) I combined the two paragraphs about impact into one, but left the non-retirement one on its own. The records should now be four paragraphs, the shortest of which is a sort of "mini-introduction" and the remainder are longer. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The words really and life have been written out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I think some of the second section can be condensed, as well, and I think the sat. image qualifies as public domain. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are now 5 paras in the forecasting and observation section: one on forecasting, one on Skylab obs, one on satellite obs, one on aerial obs, and one on how the obs were all put together. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the MWR's satellite images are PD; I'm not certain that their being from an NOAA satellite makes them the NOAA's and hence PD; but if someone uploads a sat. pic. I won't nominate it for deletion or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a really good idea to not always use things like "kts" and "mb" for those of us unfamiliar with these types of measurements. At the very least, the first use of the measurement should be spelled out, with a wikilink so the industrious can figure out what's going on. Murderbike (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on Hold

I have reviewed this article, and have found the following issues:

• In the lead, it might be good to add citations.

• In "Forecasting and observation", there are several redlinks. Are articles going to be made for these redlinks? If not, de-link them.

• How could Ava have a large error if it was so well observed? Please clarify that.

• There are some one to two sentence paragraphs which should be combined.

• Remove the comma in the header "Impact, and record".

• In the See also section, remove Hurricane Hunters and perhaps add a link to the Tropical Cyclones Portal.

• What preperations, if any, were made in case of a landfall? Please add this to the article.

• I discovered some passive voice in this article. Please change The observations also provided confirmation that tropical rainfall can be produced by clouds that are not vertically developed very much. to The observations also provided confirmation that clouds that are not vertically developed very much can produce tropical rainfall. Also change Hurricane Ava was also penetrated by recon aircraft. to Recon aircraft also penetrated Hurricane Ava.

• The first sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat confusing. Please change it to Ava was given the most advanced measurement and reconnaissance available at the time.

• Do not say "Item and item and item", say "item, item, and item". I notice you doing this in "Forecasting and observation".

• This sentence: Ava remains the third most intense, as Hurricanes Linda and Kenna have lower pressures. is alo a bit confusing. Change it to Ava is now the third most intense, as Hurricanes Linda and Kenna recorded lower pressures.

If you resolve these issues within seven days, I will pass the article. Good job on making a good article, and good luck on resolving these issues! Shrewpelt (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD#Citations says that:

• The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

• I don't see how any of the material in the lead is likely to be challenged after reading the article; all claims the lead makes are cited in the main body of the article. Yet if you still insist, I'll add citations.

• Redlinks removed.

• I made it clearer that the error was in forecasting (ie determining what the storm would do in the future) and not in observation.

• I combined the last two paragraphs in the forecasting and observation section. I don't think that combining the first with any is appropriate because its topic (forecasting) is different from the rest of the section's paragraph's topics (observation).

• Comma removed.

• A link to the TC Portal was added and a link to Hurricane Hunters was removed.

• After checking the sources, I cannot see any mention of a landfall. It seems to me that Ava never threatened anywhere with landfall.

• I removed the two instances of poassive voice you mentioned.

• The sentence was rewritten as you suggested.

• Superfluous "and" removed. The sentence now says "United States Air Force planes measured central pressure, air temperature, and humidity in the eye pressures using dropsondes."

• Sentence changed.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job! I looked at some hurricane FAs, and I found you probably don't need citations in the lead. Once again, good job! Miss Madeline, if you haven't already, you should review another GAN.Shrewpelt (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 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: moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Ava (1973) → Hurricane Ava – Only one Pacific hurricane named Ava. 219.79.250.146 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support, most notable Ava. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Disputed info

"A spokesperson from the U.S. National Weather Service was quoted as saying that, "Ava had sustained winds of about 180 knots with some gusts at 200 knots when she [sic] was peaking".[14] However, the official "Best track" data file and the seasonal summary in the Monthly Weather Review contradict that report and give maximum winds of 140 knots.[1][3] If Ava's winds were that high, they would one of the highest ever reported in a tropical cyclone anywhere. Like any report of winds that high it is suspect.[18]" - none of this is relevant

"At the time, Hurricane Ava's minimum known pressure of 915 mbar (27.0 inHg) was the lowest-known in its basin, making Ava the most intense Pacific hurricane. Ava is now the fifth-most intense, tied with Hurricane Ioke, as hurricanes Patricia, Linda, Rick and Kenna recorded lower pressures.[3] However, Linda's and Rick's pressures were only estimated from satellite imagery,[19] so Ava held the record for lowest measured pressure until Kenna surpassed it in 2002.[20] However, the meteorological record for the eastern north Pacific are unreliable because geostationary satellite observation did not begin until 1966.[19] Ava's pressure record is itself incomplete; Ava was only a Category 4 when its 915 mbar (27.0 inHg) pressure was measured, and the only reading from when it was a Category 5 hurricane is 928 mbar (27.4 inHg).[21] These two factors mean that Ava's lowest pressure may be below 915 mbar (27.0 inHg), and that there may be other cyclones stronger than Ava.[22]" - this is largely irrelevant. The part about Kenna having a lower recorded pressure was not accurate (its lowest recorded pressure was 918).

@~2026-49767-43 and ~2026-49720-10: - unless anyone contests keeping this information, I will be removing it again. Also, your edit removed the part I added to the met history about Patricia's pressure being lower. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The wording on the 200 knot measurement could probably be tightened, but it should be mentioned in the article in some capacity. Probably the same about the pressure stuff - it’s wordy but could probably be tightened. ~2026-49749-24 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

There never was a measurement of 200 knot, that’s why I’m saying it should be removed. As for the pressure, I had a much shorter wording that you reverted (presumably you, it was one of the IP’s, again, PLEASE log in). Here’s what I had: “ The 915 millibars (27.0 inches of mercury) observation remained the lowest pressure recorded in a Pacific hurricane until Hurricane Patricia in 2015.” That keeps the relevant info to Ava. Do you dispute any of those edits? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Now that you put it like that, no. ~2026-49749-24 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

So can you restore my edits? Or do you dispute anything else? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about being unable to create an account right now by the way; internet connection is unstable and it’s causing my TAs to go out of whack. I’ll make one when my connection stabilizes though. ~2026-49865-51 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I restored my edit since the TA has not yet done so. Looking forward to you having a user name. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

90% sure this is Andrew5 rearing his ugly head again. Geolocation matches to the nearest major metro area to the university he attends. I think a large rangeblock is going to be needed. wizzito | say hello! 03:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)