Talk:Hurricane Ivan

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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Good articles Hurricane Ivan has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Hurricane Ivan has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and read this. As a courtesy to other users, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark any unsigned comments.
Archives: 01.
To-do list for Hurricane Ivan: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • 3 paragraph intro
  • More detailed preparations
    • Preparations in chronological order
  • Smaller death table for impact
  • More info in impact section
    • Impact in chronological order
    • More in Grenada
    • More in the rest of the Lesser Antilles
    • More in Jamaica
    • More in Cayman Islands
    • More in Cuba
    • More in Rest of Caribbean
    • More in Alabama
    • More in Rest of the United States
  • More Aftermath
  • Records section
  • Add sources for the entire article
    • Cite web formatting
  • Complete metrification

Contents

[edit] Regarding the Eye

So, wait. Ivan lost his southern eyewall? Does that mean he lost his tropical characteristics? What does that mean? You're tellin me Ivan was America's strongest coldfront at landfall? Cyclone1 18:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivan didn't 'lose' anything, except a little intensity. The thing about the eyewall means that there was just a big freakin' hole in the southern half of the eyewall. Ivan was still a warm-core hurricane at landfall. You don't have to have an eye to be a tropical cyclone. Look at 98% of all the tropical storms that never reached hurricane intensity. They didn't have an eye, but they were very tropical. The article tropical cyclone will tell you more. Also see extratropical storm -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 05:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death table

Does that really need to be that extravagent? All that should be listed is by country (or states for the US). More detail can go in subsections (like having a Leeward Islands section and mentioning that 1 died in Barbados and 1 in Tobago), but having a table that big really clutters things. Hurricanehink 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is way too much information. — jdorje (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery

Info on this has to be included if this article is going to be the FA that it should be. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005AHS consequences

Katrina should be mentioned in the discussion of 4th highest US damages; and presumably other 2005 storms should be to. I wonder if it would be better to not use the "Ivan was the 3rd most costly US hurricane (now 4th)" format and switch it to give the emphasis to the at-the-present status (and have the at-the-time in brackets)?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to find a way to remove parentheses completely. I'm giving the article a copyedit, so I'll try to address that as well. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I created a records/naming section - Irene style to try and relieve some of the stress on the Storm History. The big change which is needed here I think is to change the Impact to a by-US State breakdown and move the impact info out of the history, which will bring that section down to a sensible length.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that section is needed at all; the hydrological records section should be removed completely, IMO, and the rest can be blended in quite easily in the impact. That said, the damages should be moved from history to impact, as you say. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah and theres the ACE - that should go completely; I'm not sure about it - get the impact section sorted then remerge it back. I'm looking at this with an eye to Wilma too, that storm has exactly the same layout problems only moreso. I think a lot of the storm history should be moved - a lot of "city X suffered TS winds" is impact. There is some aftermath info too, though it is hard to see currently, the Venezuelan crop things for a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on splitting the article up into many sections - like one for each US state; once that is done we can remerge the minor ones and know we have a good format.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, that makes the TOC very long, and it also gives the impression that the article is US-centric (which it's not). I'd say it's better if they're merged back into "United States" again. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a temporary thing - split it up then remerge; we know the right bits are in the right place. Having said that I'm not sure if the US info justifies a by state split — is that because the US didn't get that big an impact or is it indicative of a lack of information (Alabama should have more info shouldn't it?)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, remerge the US impact sections but to me it looks like there is a lack of information from the non-Florida states, if significant information can be found for other states I would favor a split - and a lack of info is a concern. The preparations section is highly US-centric at the moment; thats easily fixed (the TCR). Aftermath is stubby at the moment, but again more work will fix it.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Having them split would emphasize what is needed. In addition, it would allow for better organization. Alabama should be the biggest section, but it currently isn't. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just drastically cut down the length of the storm history, 5 paragraphs seems reasonable. It needs copyediting however, I was a bit repetitive (Cat 5 then Cat 4 then Cat 5 then Cat 4....).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved the intensity record back into the storms history, commented out the wave record for now, retirement into aftermath and removed the ACE references as trivia. Just the impact/aftermath to sort out now?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yay! The article doesn't look horrible and disorganized now. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we wait for Eric to come back, he said he had some significant info for this article? It's gone on the back burner anyway...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
He said he won't be back until after June. If anyone wants to give it a rewrite or something, you can go ahead, and Eric can just add his info when he comes back. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my hard drive crashed shortly before I left so that information is now gone and it may be awhile before I could get it off. I could rewrite it. It was a section on the recovery. Wait a minute...Hink, didn't I post it on you talk page a while back, asking you to review it? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was on my talk, but I don't remember exactly which archive it went into, and I have to run, so I can't really look for it right now. Good to see you back, though. Titoxd(?!?) 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Good thing I never archive my talk page by moving it... [1] Titoxd(?!?) 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Should the deaths from Canada be included? The storm, which was definetly part of Ivan (the old mid-level circulation), caused 2 direct deaths and 4 indirect deaths. Of course, I think that the system that went to Canada was the original Ivan, and the thing in the Gulf should have been Matthew (or Nicole, depends on if they classified the tropical storm behind Lisa). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is debatable. My opinion is the same as yours that the Gulf regenesis should have been TD14/Matthew and that "Ivan" went northeast (it is also a natural track, not a loop-de-loop), but it is not really classified as such by the NHC and it would create essentially a "branch" in the article. Since it is officially classified as a non-tropical remnant low, it would naturally be considered an extension of this article - but that southern loop with the detached surface remnants throws a curve. IMO, the damage and deaths there should indeed be included, but others will disagree. CrazyC83 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category 5 record?

Was Ivan the most southerly Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic (13.7 degrees north)? I can't think of any other Cat. 5s which occured that far south. If so, I think it deserves a mention in the article. Pobbie Rarr 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. Feel free to improve the Records section. :) Pobbie Rarr 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/r/Talk%7EHurricane_Ivan_24f9.html"