 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
The MODIS imagery is said to be "near peak intensity shortly before making landfall in Alabama". The NHC has landfall 5:45 hours after this image was captured, with winds 15 mph higher. Is this imagery really representative?
Was wondering about the phrase "This intensification that occurred has been described as some of the most rapid intensification in a tropical cyclone in modern history." This is located at the end of Meteorological History. I raise concern as to by whom it was said. It would be great if there was an NHC discussion, advisory or similar to support this, but the statement appears unsourced, and when reading begs the question in my mind "described by whom..." Is this an issue at all and what can be done to solve it.
According to the best track the C2 point has been revised downward to 80 kt. I believe this should be reflected in the article and take precedent. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, winds have been found, unless the nhc have said so, it remains as C2
Per the NHC and data from Recon, Sally was indeed a 90 kt C2 at the 4:00pm Intermediate advisory on September 14th 2020. Therefore,unless announced by the NHC themselves, the C2 point should stand.
Please see Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Sally
Bringing category 2 hurricane winds, and causing billions, we should make an Alabama or Florida effects article. It can fill up 1 article. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath info is very light - details on disaster declarations, FEMA assistance, debris removal etc. are missing. Organization of the impact and aftermath sections is questionable: for example, power restoration works are mentioned in both when it should be in just the latter, and the info about the Shoal River should be under impact. Much of the meteorological history is not supported by the existing references, which point to the NHC's public advisories that don't give details on storm structure (their forecast discussions should be used instead). The bundling of refs 44 to 51 is citation overkill and it's not clear what info they're supporting - if it's that many warnings were issued, one or two news sources that mention that would make things much more obvious. Several statements in the article need to be updated, e.g. "FEMA declared that they will be bringing additional resources..." (did they or did they not?), "The Florida Department of Transportation was unable to assess any possible damage to the bridge due to ongoing high winds" (any repairs underway?), "a curfew was imposed in Mobile, Alabama, starting on September 16" (has it ended?). There is some misleading wording over at "Restoration of power took several weeks to bring back to 100%", as the ref states that was accomplished on September 26, less than 2 weeks after the storm. The third paragraph of aftermath sounds overly sensational with overuse of "devastating" (some numbers may be good to back that up). There are more stylistic and minor wording issues that I won't point out here, but the article could do with some proofreading (or maybe run it through Grammarly).
@Robloxsupersuperhappyface: I'd advise withdrawing the GAN for now while these issues are addressed; presently I find the article needs quite a bit of work to meet Good Article Criteria 1a, 1b, 2b, and 3a. If you still want to continue with the nomination - or if you feel I'm being much too harsh with my evaluation against the GA criteria - I won't demand that the review be failed, but please consider the feedback and continue improving the article regardless. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KN2731, ok! Thank you for the feedback. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were the retired names of this hurricane season so bad that they decided to keep Sally on the 2026 list? I for real thought Sally was at high risk of retirement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.128.10 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not cover impact on Dauphin Island, which remained in the northwestern eyewall for hours, where the strongest winds likely occurred. The automated weather station at the east end of the island was destroyed in the early landfall, but indications of gusts of 130 mph and more exist. In addition, several waterspouts/tornados crossed the east end of the island, leaving telltale debris trails. Approximately 30% of the structures on the island sustained light to moderate damage from wind, falling trees and storm surge. About two dozen structures were heavily damaged. Many streets were blocked, roof failure and structural damage was commom, ramps and docks were destroyed, the electrical grid was widely compromised, and beach erosion was severe. Complete recovery took nearly a year. 2601:4C4:C201:22F0:F1BC:25E7:91FF:2EA9 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
