Talk:Hurricane Debby (2000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Hurricane Debby (2000) is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: August 6, 2006

Contents

[edit] Todo

Needs cleanup of grammar, spelling and metrification to meet B-class, I think. NSLE 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I could insert pic of Debby's remants near the Yucatan Peninsula, or is it too unnotable to deserve to be there? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on bettering it. Now I'm fine with its existance. It could be B, but one important thing is missing. There should be more info on Preparations in Florida. At one point, the NHC forecasted Debby to be near the Florida Keys as a strong Cat. 2, while one computer model indiciated a Category 4 hurricane there. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a picture of the forecast track in existance? I found one, but it's not a USGov site, unless if that's where the picture was made. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I did metrification. How's that? Is this almost a B-class now? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I question the damage total. The WMO report says that Debby caused 500,000 in damage (2000 DRP), but that is not equal to $16 million. That needs a source. Also, please don't copy and paste exactly what I said. I gave some links below that explained the situation in Florida. IMO, that should be given much more info before being called a B. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
About the damage; I just converted the DOP (it's not DRP) into USD. That's what it came out as. And ok, I won't copy and paste exactly what you wrote. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You must have screwed something up. I used this converter site and got $34,000 in damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I'll change the main page to reflect the correct damage. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried looking for information on the aftermath and looked for some available damage photos, but found nothing. I thought I'd say this just incase if someone knew of somewhere where there was information. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some links you might find useful. It covers a little bit about the aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. So I guess there's likely no USGov damage photos. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I remove the cleanup tag now? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A cleanup isn't needed, but parts of the article need copyediting. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Such as?... íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just a lot of little things. th is not generally used, nautical miles shouldn't be used, this sentence (Cuba evacuated around 7,000 people to remove themselves from Debby's projected path), the Florida part of the preparations (which should be expanded greatly), small sentences (This caused gas prices to rise), Another close measurement, Also on the island, the storm was indirectly responsible for one death; a 78-year-old[6] man fell off his roof in San Juan[20] when trying to remove his satellite antenna before the storm.[2], with widespread thirst was finally put to rest. The writing isn't that good in places, and needs a good copyedit, along with not as many red links. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed most of what you said needed a cleanup. Better (I assume it is, but I don't know how much)? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
... a little bit. Some places still don't make sense. You should get some more outside eyes to give it a copyedit. First, you shouldn't copy and paste anything from the article into the intro. The intro should be a summary, not a re-write. Next, you should never use the word "some" in an article. Yea, you should get some outside eyes. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did a copy edit on the preparations. It should look a lot better now, multiple spelling errors and gramatical issues. Aeon 05:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you go back and fix some of the reference problems. Some of the references now show up like [18] rather than having a link. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, that copyedit someone did actually made some things worse. I'm fixing those problems right now. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the problems. Now what more can be done to the article? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cite web formatting, I guess. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh.. I hate that! Sorry for being so lazy, but isn't there someone that's good at it and enjoys it? I know TimL2k4 did a nice job with Hurricane Camille, so maybe he could do it. But very few things would make me add the cite web formatting. Sorry. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with it? All you do is <ref name="whatever">{{cite web|author=Some Guy|year=Publish year|title=Title of the page|accessdate=2006-07-12|url=www.website.com}}</ref>. It takes very little work. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do it. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And about the aftermath, is what I think an aftermath is different from what it really means? Because in those aftermath websites you (hink) showed my above, I only found one statement I thought was the aftermath. Can someone (Hurricanehink I guess, since your the only one that responds) go through the two websites and check for the aftermath info, because the lack of aftermath in the article is one of the reasons it's not a GA. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the links again, you're right, there's little to no aftermath. You could just move the aftermath into the impact section. Also, as a tip, don't copy and paste it into the impact. Work it in. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. How's it look? And once I finish the citeweb thingy, do you think this article is worthy of GA nomination again? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The moved sentence makes little to no sense. You should rewrite and work it in better. Were the 30,000 people on Puerto Rico? Also, the vacationers thing is speculation and not needed. After cite webbing, you should get someone to copyedit it first. Maybe a GA nom would be warrented after that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't someone already copyedit it? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There's still a few places that don't make sense. For example, the U.S. territories section. In the USVI sentences, you say the damage was at $200,000, but then you said in another sentence that damage was minimal and mostly from power outages. Similarly, you use five sentences to describe rainfall totals. Part of writing compellingly is combining short or repetitive sentences. Wouldn't something like this work better? "While parallelling the northern coast of Puerto Rico, Debby produced heavy rainfall of up to 12.63 inches (320 mm) in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, with unofficial totals of up around 17 inches (430 mm) in the interior mountains. The rainfall produced flooding and mudslides, causing damage to bridges and roads." The only thing that wasn't said was the 5 inches in San Juan, and that could be said in the same sentence with the car accidents. For example, "The hurricane dropped around 5 inches (127 mm) of rain in San Juan, producing slick roads that resulted in several minor car accidents". You don't need to mention about the possible indirect traffic deaths. Either they happened and they should be mentioned, or they didn't and shouldn't. If you're describing the impact of a storm in a particular aspect, like houses, you should do it all in the same sentence. For example, "Debby's rainfall impact 406 homes, five of which were moderately to severely damaged". You shouldn't have the damage total right next to the housing damage, as that would imply that all of the damage came from the 406 effected houses. As a summary, it works to have the total number of deaths and damage in the same sentence. For example, "In Puerto Rico, Debby caused $501,000 in damage (2000 USD, $556,000 2005 USD) and one indirect death due to a man falling from the roof of his home". The exact details of the indirect death isn't that important. Is it that important to Hurricane Debby that the man was 81, or that he was trying to install a satellite dish? Things like these need to be fixed. If you want, you could copy and paste my suggestions in the article. As more todo, you should try and do what I did for the other sections. Combining sentences makes it more consise and interesting. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful links

Here's some links for Debby. I'm not sure which ones you've already done, as these were some I had lying around (I was planning on doing a Debby article a while, but decided not to).

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some more from them to the article. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debby became the unnofficial subtropical cyclone?

I was looking through the sattelite imagery on the gibbs thing, and I noticed that Debby's remants seemed to have absorbed another low and organized itself before making landfall in North Carolina. Then I went on the HPC and found the David Roth (thegreatdr) said there was an unofficial subtropical storm in late august. I looked at the page and found the dates matched the dates Debby passed through there, and the subtropical storm was in the same area. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Debby restrengthened into a subtropical storm in late August and made landfall in south Carolina. Should this be brought to the NHC? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds possible, but unfortunately, you don't have any evidence. The NHC didn't even treat that other storm as an actual storm. I'm removing it from the article, but it can stay here on the talk page. If anyone, you should ask User:Thegreatdr, as he works at the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What should I tell him? That Debby and the unnofficial subtropical storm are the same system and you should fix the HPC to reflect that? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You should ask him if there is a chance that they are the same system. That's what I'd do. Remember, he's part of the government. You don't know what they know about you... ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
...Sorta. I meant you should have asked him or something. You have no evidence that Debby was in fact the other subtropical storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  • You have a cleanup tag, whatever is there for, clean it up.
  • I am intrigued by your references, they are insane. Cleanup per WP:CITE
  • With refs like that, you're aren't going anywhere in a hurry. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
For the reference cleanup, you might want to use {{cite web}} to help you. To claim a web address as a reference you certainly need details like date of last access. TheGrappler 05:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Hurricane Debby (2000) has failed, for the following reason(s):

  • The prose is not compelling, and has quite a few awkward phrases like "disorganized hurricane", "Due to the minimal damage resulted from Debby", "amount of tourism", etc. The consistent use of passive voice affects readability quite a bit. Needs a thorough copyedit for professional tone and grammar.
  • There is not sufficient explanation or wikilinking of topics for non-specialist readers. For example, in the opening paragraph, you call it a hurricane and a cyclone. Are those different? The same? Which one was it? Also you introduce the concept of a hurricane "category" without explaining or wikilinking it. Either provide a brief explanation of technical terms, or link them to their respective articles so people can go read what they mean.
  • You say it formed August 19 off the "Windward Islands" (Where are those? Wikilink?) but later you say it formed August 16 in Africa.
  • Now we're now talking about Tropical Depression 7.. what is that?
  • Aftermath section needs to be fleshed out or integrated into another section.

Keep up the great work and try again! Aguerriero (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Hurricane Debby (2000) has failed, for the following reason:

Above concerns have not been appropriately addressed. Weak grammar still makes reading of the article difficult. Awkward sentences still exist ("This pleased the local Cubans" - so what?) The storm history is very stop-start. Again, the point made above about formation date has not been corrected. Please address these issues before re-nominating. Chacor 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the formation date issue. Plus, this article has had 2 1/2 copyedits. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Which, obviously, have not been enough. Nowhere near a good article standard, IMO. Like I said, it's hard to read. Chacor 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/r/Talk%7EHurricane_Debby_%282000%29_b101.html"