Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Hone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still active?

[edit]

Is there a reason why we're not treating Hone as dissipated by now? Neither the JMA nor the JTWC is issuing advisories on the storm, and the JTWC has not mentioned it in its most recent tropical weather advisory for the West/South Pacific. JayTee⛈️ 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because as of 18z the JMA are still monitoring it as a tropical depression within their marine bulletins WWJP27. (TROPICAL DEPRESSION 1016 HPA AT 33N 177E WNW SLOWLY.) Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the JMA's in-website cyclone map and saw nothing where (what's left of) Hone would be, and I took that as a sign that Hone had officially dissipated. Was that the right call? 2600:6C4A:1B3F:AE46:E800:679E:3E2:D2C2 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope since as of 00z it is still being tracked on their WWJP27 marine bulletins as a TD. Jason Rees (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. HurricaneZetaC 22:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: FrizzB (talk · contribs) 14:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HurricaneZeta (talk · contribs) 02:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this HurricaneZetaC 02:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  • First, before anything, Earwig shows an 87% match with the TCR. This isn't a copyvio since the TCR is public domain, but it would be nice if you added {{source-attribution}} within the <ref> and </ref> tags where the TCR is first cited. HurricaneZetaC 03:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)  Done I will get to the rest laterFrizzBTalk 18:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could rephrase some so it isn't a word-for-word regurgitation of the TCR, since readers could also just go there for that content. Some suggestions for the entire meteorological history section:
      • The disturbance that Hone would eventual develop from was also interacting with another disturbance to its southwest. The dominant disturbance to the east, developed a well-defined circulation and sufficient convection to be designated a tropical depression by 00:00 UTC on August 22, when it was located about 1,150 mi (1,850 km) east-southeast of the Hawaiian Islands. This section is lacking in terms of readability - which is the dominant disturbance? Where did the one to the east come from? Additionally, the exact time in UTC isn't needed.
      • Same thing with the time goes for most of it, it's fine but could also be replaced seamlessly with "earlier that day", "that evening", etc. so it doesn't seem like the numbers are just being thrown at the reader.
      • , while otherwise in a conducive environment for strengthening influenced by low vertical wind shear and warm sea surface temperatures of 82 °F (28 °C). This can be simplified, for example: , while otherwise in a favorable environment with low wind shear and warm sea surface temperatures.
      • The disturbance that Hone would eventual develop eventual -> eventually
     DoneFrizzBTalk 18:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • large subtropical rige to the north rige -> ridge
     DoneFrizzBTalk 18:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overall, my suggestion would be to paraphrase the parts where it's directly copied from the TCR, and even in some of the parts where it's not, since it might not be fully understandable. Some words, like "well-defined circulation", "convection", and "subtropical ridge" could be simplified, wikilinked, or explained on their first usage and not for the rest, but I'm also guilty of not simplifying this, so feel free to just paraphrase it while still using the same words. Additionally, be careful of directly copying from sources in the future, since most of the time they will not be public domain or under a free license.
HurricaneZetaC 03:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Image 1 is technically derivative of both of the images composited, but they are both PD, so it's good.  Pass
  • Image 2 - Track map,  Pass
  • Image 3 is a  Pass, only nitpick is that it says "Unknown author" when it should be the satellite that took the picture, which is likely one of the GOES satellites. (likely GOES-18 or GOES-19).
Images are good, more on the prose and sourcing to come tomorrow. HurricaneZetaC 03:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, apologies for the wait, but finishing this up:

Source check

[edit]
  • [9] -  Pass
  • [13] -  Pass but the information does seem trivial
  • [17] - Question: Looks like it says that one summit and a few other areas were closed but not the entire park - is there a source to support the claim that the entire park was closed?
  • [31] -  Pass
  • [34] - Question: The sentence seems closely paraphrased from the source, can you amend it to remove the CLOP?

More comments

[edit]
  • You should do a more thorough check since it doesn't seem like you wrote some parts in for example the impact section, so check especially for CLOP and if everything checks out.
  • Sources 44-48 are dropped at the end of the paragraph, and this seems like cite overkill. If all the sources are needed, consider moving them to wherever they support the claims or expand the article to include claims from the sources. If some sources are unneeded or redundant, consider replacing them.
  • Overall, the meteorological history needs a lot of work, the impacts section needs a bit of work, and a quick check for TSI and CLOP is recommended.
Placing on hold for now, ping when issues are addressed. HurricaneZetaC 18:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta  Done FrizzBTalk 22:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by HurricaneZeta (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Hurricane Hone
Hurricane Hone
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by FrizzB (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

FrizzBTalk 17:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]


Per TCR, Hone did not form in the Central Pacific, but in the far west Eastern Pacific. The line "...Hone was the first tropical cyclone to form in the Central Pacific since 2019..." is incorrect.

[edit]

Hone's formation location in first paragraph of article. ThatBluePit (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatBluePit The weather system hat one formed from formed in the Eastern Pacific, but Hone was designated as a tropical depression in the Central Pacific. GiftedIceCream 15:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Hone&oldid=1334443456"