Talk:Hurricane Alex (2010)

typing from an iPhone sorry if this comes out messy, however the Houston Chronicle just released an article about preparations. I can't provide the link because my phone is lame but it talks about Tex. Gov Perry declaring states of emergency for 19 counties and other very wiki information. Keep up the good work ... Altarboy420 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC) ... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7085151.html Altarboy420 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Definitely worth mentioning, thanks. Official source: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/14811/ --Nickm93 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone going to update the hurricane and tropical storm warnings in the article? Altarboy420 (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and did it. I welcome someone re-wording or doing whatever to what I wrote as long as the information stays in the article Altarboy420 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to article 17,000 evacuated from Mexican coast. Good info for article? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/01/2942523.htm. Altarboy420 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A Mexican Weather Station picked up a pressure reading of ~992mb while Alex made landfall, see this link, should this be mentioned in the article? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then again maybe not, something seems off about it, notice how at the beginning of the day the pressure was 998mb even when the TC wasn't close. Nevermind it appears to be bad data. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• AL, 01, 2010062812, , BEST, 0, 201N, 916W, 50, 989, TS, 34, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60, 1006, 250, 20, 60, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, ALEX, D, 12, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60
• AL, 01, 2010062812, , BEST, 0, 201N, 916W, 50, 989, TS, 50, NEQ, 25, 0, 0, 0, 1006, 250, 20, 60, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, ALEX, D, 12, NEQ, 60, 30, 30, 60

According to the current track data Alex made a direct hit on the island chain of Cayos Arcas today, it appears the Center of Circulation passed within about two miles of the island chain located at 20.21'N 91.98'W per this. I naddition per the 4:00 CDT advisory (Advisory 13) a Mexican Naval station on the island reported a pressure of 992mb. Should this data be added to the article, or the tohe table on the season page? -Marcusmax(speak) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

As the island is uninhabited according to its article, no, it shouldn't, unless there's a good reason to do so. Alex made a direct hit on many islands before making landfall near Belize City, and adding all of them is not needed in my opinion. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if im wrong, but this island thus far is the only is the only one that has an official weather observation station, which means that a direct hit can be confirmed, while the islands near Belize can't really be confirmed as direct hits other then using track data. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the Cayos Arcas are also an important oil port per this Reuters article, "The ports of Dos Bocas and Cayo Arcas, which handle 80 percent of Mexico's oil export shipping in the Gulf, have been closed since Sunday due to strong surf in the area." -Marcusmax(speak) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discovering this, I say include it. The closing of important rigs may be the "good reason" to mention an uninhabited island in the article. Nickm93 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I used to write articles on hurricanes here under a different user name several years ago and it was pretty much standard S.O.P. to include any and all directly hit islands, counties, cities etc... You want to give someone as much information as possible on the storm. I vote YES on the inclusion of directly hit islands into this article. Altarboy420 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reading the added information, then yes, it should be added. Also, for the Season Effects template, I found some other island landfalls/direct hits for Alex, however, via the RBT and advisory data. Here's to sum up all landfalls/direct hits so far: Great Blue Hole with 65 mph winds, Turneffe Islands with 65 mph winds, Drowned Cays with 60 mph winds, North of Belize City with 60 mph, and Cayos Arcas with 60 mph winds. Darren23^Edits|Mail 05:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should mention all of the direct hits. If anything, just the official landfalls, which the NHC will mention in its tropical cyclone report. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I suspect most land-impacting TCs make several minor landfalls or direct hits on small islands which do not need a mention in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Currently, this is mentioned in both the Preparations and Impact sections. The mentions should be consolidated, into either section. Or, would having a section dedicated to potential impact on the oil spill be necessary? Nickm93 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whilst i know the media are going mad about Alex and the Oil Spill it only really needs to be mentioned once in the impact section.Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being the first TS of the season, it does alert people to the potential threat that could face the oil spill and operations there. However, the storm itself has stayed well away from the site. For that reason, I agree it should only have minimal mention here. Nickm93 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Should we take note of the size of the storm in the article, or should we wait until after the season ends to do so? The storm is, I would estimate, about 25 degrees wide in latitude and longitude including its outer bands. It already fills up almost the entire Gulf of Mexico. This is likely the result of Alex being the merger of an ICTZ wave and another wave, developing into a storm similar in style to a West Pacific typhoon. Also, Hurricane Darby started weakening when Alex developed into a depression, when it was already large enough to have an effect on the much stronger hurricane. Alex eventually reduced Darby to a depression and absorbed it. Should we mention this as well, and the fact that some spiral bands extend to the East Pacific? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't mention it until the NHC says something. No need for OR. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The lead mentions Alex becoming a hurricane early on June 30. While this is true for UTC, shouldn't we use the date for CDT (where the hurricane is)? Nickm93 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane articles always use UTC time. It might be confusing, but we strive for consistency. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Houston Chronicle seems to be doing the best job on covering the current conditions of Hurricane Alex. They have been rather detailed about sandbag issuance and some mandatory evacuations on South Padre Island that are not mentioned in the article. Just thought it might be helpful. Also the 1995 season saw 19 named storms and 11 hurricanes, an incredibly active season. Should that be mentioned in the article?Altarboy420 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38030564/ns/weather/. Is the second article I have read that mentions the two tornadoes in south Texas and that alex came ashore with 110 mph winds, disputing the 105 figure that is in the article. I know personal opinion is frowned upon here; but I believe that after the storm dissapates they will upgrade this storm to a cat 3. It's so well organized and THE PRESSURE!Altarboy420 (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, in any case, the NHC is the official source, and we follow it, no matter what other news agencies say. That news source is probably erroneous. Also, please do not put comments not meant to improve the article. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alex is the first June hurricane since Allison in 1995, but it is also the strongest one since Audrey, the strongest ever, formed in 1957. Should this also be mentioned in the main article?98.206.70.2 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly, Alex is the strongest hurricane since Audrey in terms of pressure, but in terms of windspeed, it is not. However, because the Alex's pressure is lower than a normal Cat 1 storm , I don't know if it's wise to call it the strongest since Audrey using the pressure. Darren23^Edits|Mail 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alma's pressure was listed at 970 but incomplete, still it is likely it never got below 950. Still, Alma had higher winds. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It has 948 right now; it should be mentioned.98.206.70.2 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, on Alex's peak, it became the strongest non-major hurricane in the Atlantic, 105 mph and 947 mbars. I think this should be mentioned too.98.206.70.2 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like an interesting bit of information, but I'm unable to immediately verify it. If you could provide a source to back up that fact, it would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the only non-major hurricane that is deeper than Alex that I can think of is Ike, in the TCR it said 100 mph 944 hPa. Darren23^Edits|Mail 13:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ike was a major hurricane, though, and I assume there are quite a few former-MHs that had lower pressures during their weakening stages. Juliancolton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have one source; it is http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/index.html. In here, if you look at the best track in the Atlantic basin (1851-2009), You can see past Atlantic storms and their pressures, and I can't find anything past Alex that was not a major hurricane.(I made a username)Rye998 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's what I figured... I've examined the best track more than a few times in search of various records, so it should be fairly easy to check this out. Juliancolton (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've used Unisys, too, but I don't think Alex was beaten; if it was, I don't know what storm was stronger. I think the closest runner-up(s) were Chloe of 1967 and Ginny of 1963, with 958 milibars each(as of what I know), but I could be wrong; there might be a few stronger storms than those two. Have you found any other storms that have beaten Alex, Julian? I haven't. I think this should be mentioned as a record now.Rye998 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It looks like it'll make a landfall in June CDT, but in Greenwich time (UTC), it will be the morning of July 1st. How do you determine dates for landfall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.100.114 (talk)

We use UTC time for consistency. Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, if we were to say that this was the strongest June hurricane to make landfall since so and so, we'd be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.100.114 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Technically yes unless it hits in the next hour. However, it is by pressure the second strongest June storm ever behind Audrey. Needs to get down to 945 mbar by 0000 UTC to break that. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Officially, Alex made landfall at around 0200 UTC on July 1, so I suggest we avoid any June-landfall records. Juliancolton (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although not making landfall in June, it did develop in June and reached peak strength (arguably) in June. While we should avoid landfall records, it still made records while at sea. The definition of "June hurricane" may be taken (in my opinion) two ways: It developed in June, like Alex, or it made landfall in June. Calling Alex a July hurricane wouldn't make too much sense; a hybrid of June-developed, July-landfalling hurricane is needed (but less wordy?). Nickm93 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Traditionally, a tropical cyclone is dated by the month it formed (so Alex is a "June hurricane"). I don't think it presents a huge issue personally; we just need to be careful to avoid potential inaccuracies. Juliancolton (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a well defined eye as of now, and I believe that it should be shown, as the picture now is messy and Tropical Storm-ish. Old Al (Talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This might be a good choice, although the image dimensions are a bit difficult. Juliancolton (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I think I found a better image, and will upload it soon, but the dimensions will still pose a problem. Old Al (Talk) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like Julian's image ... also in the article ... Current storm condition and current storm status do not matchAltarboy420 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a 3D image that I composed myself, where should I put it in the article? Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 04:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anywhere is good at this point. There needs to be more images to break up the massive blocks of text. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

[[1]] is the image that I was talking about, but should it be for a landfall image in the page, the main image now, or the main image later? Old Al (Talk) 04:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, we have a rule in WPTC that we should use visual images for the main image. However, you might be able to fit it somewhere in the article, but I just don't know where at this time. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alright, but how do I resize it? Either way it would be to big. Old Al (Talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://johnzanussi.com/post/756340310/hurricane-alex-has-made-landfall-in-northeast. Cool pic but idk if it's useable or notAltarboy420 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's AVN coloring of IR imagery from wunderground on that site. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, resized. Old Al (Talk) 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Beeb says 12 deaths; has anyone found what the breakdown was? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

With the 5 reported by Universal, and 4 reported by Milenio, that would bring us to 21. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

death toll from this storm has been extremely hard to meter. Absolutely none of the news agencies are reporting the same figures, which shows their inaccuracy. But given the remote locations of some of these flooded villages the toll is likey to go up today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.94 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can someone provide an inline citation for the death toll so this can get onto ITN? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a sum of several sources listed in the article, particularly in the impact section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

More precisely, it's a combination of the 3 citations for the Dominican Republic death toll; the 3 citations for the Central America death toll; the 3 sources given for the Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero death tolls, and the 4 sources given for the Nuevo Leon death toll. Posting all 13 references in the lede would certainly go against the spirit of WP:LEDECITE, so I don't. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

i know its a blog but if required heres a source talking about 24 Deaths from alex.[2]Jason Rees (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Hurricane Alex underwent an eyewall replacement cycle, normally occurring only in major hurricanes, while it was a category one and had the pressure of a category three. However, after completing this cycle, Alex began to go through a reverse eyewall replacement cycle by building new inner eyewalls that replaced its outer eyewall. I have a source, but it's Jeff Masters' blog so I'm not sure if it's reliable enough for this info. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It'd be ok as long as you attribute it in the prose to Jeff Masters. We'll see what the NHC says in the TCR eventually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm grabbing the rainfall data from southern Mexico (in the last few days I can) from the SMN/CONAGUA website, and I'm finding some monumental totals in an area between 16 and 18.5 north latitude, and 98 and 100 degrees longitude, in the range of 40 and 110 inches (1-2.7 meters). Can someone with better knowledge of Spanish check out if there were numerous landslides in that state, or if these kinds of totals are substantiated elsewhere within their website? If this is true, the rains that fell in this state from Alex are nearly equal (in a 24 hour period) to the Wilma rainfall amounts in the Yucatan, and that Alex would have produced more rain than any other known tropical cyclone in Mexico. Thanks for whatever additional info you all can find. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There were 3 deaths in the state from the rainfall, but this makes me think that Alex's effect is indirect. In particular,

Which translates to:

I'll keep looking for rainfall amounts in the CONAGUA site. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those sites in Guerrero look way too high...not just for Alex, but for the remainder of the month as well. Since Alex's circulation drew Darby inland, it would certainly count, even if people want to call it indirect. Darby was a "remnant low" at that point, right? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It strikes me as odd that CONAGUA made a press release about Alex's 890 mm in La Estanzuela, yet ignored a 2700 mm precipitation total. Also the press did not mention it at all, otherwise I would have run into it (since I was looking at news feeds 24/7 at the time). Something is off. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The SMN's Hurricane Summary (sweet reference!) mentions nothing about Guerrero... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a plethora of information available for Preps/Impact/Aftermath on the Texas Department of Public Safety website. They have 36 situation reports on the storm and the following floods along the Rio Grande. Although these reports are numerous, they don't last forever since the site does not keep an archive of these (AFAIK). The site it located at this link. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't the other image of Alex put in the infobox? Someone changed it, but the other one looks better. Is this vandalism? Or does anyone else think it shouldn't be there? I like the other one because it looks better, even though Alex wasn't at it's peak when that image was taken. Does anyone else think it should be changed? I personally don't like it the way it is. Celia's image was when it was a 4, and the seperate peak intensity image is in the main article on that storm. Rye998 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why would it be vandalism? WP:AGF and all…

That said, I changed it because the MODIS picture did look better than the grainy GOES pseudo-visible image. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am AGF, but every other storm in 2010 went by the picture like Alex when it was a category one, so it shouldn't be different with this storm. We go by what the quality of the picture is, not by whether or not it was stronger with a different picture, or we go by what we can find. Rye998 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is actually some sort of guideline about which image to use in infoboxes. That said, the edit was made in good faith, so it cannot be vandalism, by definition. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Given the length, the lede should probably be three paragraphs

  Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Be sure to use the Mexico WMO report when it comes in

  Not up yet... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Watch for overlinking (I noticed Carib Sea is linked twice just in the lede)

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Find the status on the missing person in DR (and should it say "is missing" or "was missing"?)

  Couldn't find that anywhere. ReliefWeb doesn't even cover the Dominican Republic, and newspaper searches didn't yield anything useful. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Is a breakdown of the death toll by every location really needed in the lede? It seems to distant to see a rattled list of deaths by each state. I would rather see some statistics, like houses damaged, destroyed, people left homeless, any other big impact thingies.

  I kept it in, and left the other big impact thingies in the third paragraph. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first mentioned the wave on June 20" - you should mention "as a candidate for tropical cyclone formation", as they likely mentioned in some context beforehand in the TWD

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "By 1800 UTC, the a surface low-pressure area had formed about 90 nautical miles (105 mi; 165 km)" - first, fix "the a", and second, why do you use nautical miles? It's not used elsewhere, and normally isn't used in TC articles

  Removed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "Late on June 25, Hurricane Hunters confirmed the development of a low-level circulation, which meant that the area of disturbed weather met all the criteria for it to be considered a tropical depression. Accordingly, the system was classified as Tropical Depression One at 2200 UTC while it was located about 345 miles (555 km) to the east-southeast of Chetumal, Quintana Roo" - is there any way that could be condensed a bit?

  I like it that way, since it explains why low-level circulation mattered, and then the other sentence stands alone by itself. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "Alex was now located in a moist, low shear environment" - that's sort of an awkward way to start a paragraph

  It's just an adjectival clause, so I prefer this wording to break monotony. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "the National Hurricane Center confirmed that Alex had made landfall" - why confirmed? There is no earlier indication of moving ashore, so I don't really get it.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'm curious, did Alex have the lowest pressure of a Category 2 hurricane? If so, that should be mentioned.

  I'm not sure how to reference this without doing WP:OR by using HURDAT. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "by 0000 UTC July 2 (10 p.m. CDT July 1), the Sierra Madre Oriental disrupted Alex's core, causing the storm to weaken into a tropical depression and dissipate over San Luis Potosí[1]" - is there something missing? There's no fullstop after Potosi.

  Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's it up through the MH. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Alex (2010)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ★ Auree _talk 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

Comments

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

   Excellent sourcing throughout the article.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   A thorough and comprehensive read for sure, though some part seem a bit detailed.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

   Public domain images with relevant captions

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

Pass despite a few overly detailed sections, as this article definitely meets GA criteria. Very nice work on this; it was a great read! ★ Auree _talk 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Alex (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/WTUS84-KBRO.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Flash-flood-warning-extended-across-Jamaica

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Alex (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1298125&lang=eng_news
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411090214/http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/7c954b2a681dd8c89db2c26caf6152ee to http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/7c954b2a681dd8c89db2c26caf6152ee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Alex (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016052025/http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/58728fb8aae6dbf3108c44ad75040693 to http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/58728fb8aae6dbf3108c44ad75040693

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think a word, or rather a speed is missing from "with maximum sustained winds of with sustained winds ". ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi WereSpielChequers, thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the "with sustained winds" clause as redundant to the "maximum" clause. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Dylan, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply