User talk:Mitchazenia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitchazenia. |
 |
| This is the User talk page for Mitchazenia |
|
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Re: Isaac
First, it's spelled wrong. It's Isaac, with two A's (not two s's). It needs more intro and storm history, but if you were to publish it I'd rate it a start. You shouldn't publish it yet, though. Fix the naming first. The storm history, aside from having no sources, is on the short side.. Use tropical weather outlooks and discussions to make it longer. Wording needs to be improved, and some phrases are awkward. You should try and find some other sources, as two might not be considered enough by some. For example, you could mention that though it passed fairly close to Bermuda (find the exact distance), it caused no effects on the island, per this link. Due to the short length of the impact and the preparations, I recommend you combine the two, and have a section title called "Preparations and Impact". If you can find records or anything else useful, add it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- You could add a bit of storm history to the lede to make it longer. The storm history, while a decent length, doesn't use any tropical weather outlooks, and only uses three discussions. You should read through it again, as some places are awkward or even incorrect. "The strengthening convection caused Dvorak to release its first numbers on the system." That isn't true. The organizing convection resulted in Dvorak classifications to begin, not due to the strength of the convection. "Continued strengthening was slow as high upper-level wind shear influenced with the wave." Strengthening isn't the right word. Further organization would work better. "just twelve hours after the cyclone's formation" sounds a bit POV (12 hours isn't that short of time). "Soon after, Isaac merged with a larger extratropical system on October 3, although the merge wasn't expected for another day or two." The last part of that isn't needed at all. "Had Issac gone farther north, St. John's would've experience worse winds." This sentence is unimportant and possibly false (what if the strongest winds were to the southeast?) "Cape Race experienced 26mm of rain, the highest by Issac. St. John's and Cape Pine reported 10 and 19mm rainfall totals" Ugh, please rewrite this to make it flow better. "This is the third use of the name Issac. The other two were in the 1988 season and the 2000 season. It was not used in 1982 and 1994 due to an El Nino effect. Retirement, if it happens, will come to know in Spring of 2007." This section is completely useless and should be removed due to poor grammar and the fact it isn't true. All in all, you need to put much more effort into it. It's poorly written, and probably has more info out there that's not in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, why are you tired of asking me for assessments? I provide you ways for you to better your articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, just checking. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- You don't know what a contraction is? That's a fairly basic term in writing. It is combining two words to make one, such as that's in the previous sentence (the combination with that and is). Your article only uses wouldn't. As an addennum, you should avoid possessiveness, as it can be informal. For example, "after the cyclone's formation" could be "after the cyclone formed." The intro is still very short and should be lengthened. Have you googled for any information regarding Newfoundland effects? You should use the TWO's and the discussions, like I've said several times, to make the storm history better. Aside from being very poorly written, the storm history is a bit short. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to check, do you plan on doing more work on it, or are you completely finished? The article still needs a good bit of work. For example, you shouldn't link to the NRL backup page as a source saying one model predicted it to get to 88 knots. You need a source that says it explictly. You never rewrote anything. The storm history is still poorly written, as demonstrated by the following examples.
- "The strengthening convection caused Dvorak to release its first numbers on the system." - Like I told you before, it's the organizing convection, not the strength of the convection, and what numbers?
- "That did not come true as the first Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert was not released until four days afterwards." - How does one relate to the other? Why didn't it strengthen? Did it ever fluctuate in organization or did it remain disorganized for a few days?
- "The NHC did not think it was a good system and the TCFA was discontinued." - You need to explain acronyms for which you never used before, while the rest of the sentence is apalling.
- "Three days later, on September 27 another TCFA was issued, but this time it became the ninth tropical depression." - Why was the TCFA issued? Is it important to keep using a term for which you never wikilinked and explained?
- "after the cyclone's formation" - avoid the possessiveness
- "Deep convection was slow that day as cold air left by Hurricanes Gordon and Helene upwelled" - That makes no sense. The convection was not slow, and Gordon and Helene did not upwell cold air, it upwelled waters
- "The next day, the cyclone started moving west-northwestward and started gaining subtropical characteristics with a deepening convection." - Subtropical characteristics? Like what? A subtropical storm doesn't have deepening convection near the center. It needs explaination and a wikilink if it's even true
- "Vertical shear lessened, moving away from the upwelled air and Isaac started re-developing in its core." What shear? You never mentioned any shear before
- "Atmospheric conditions were favorable as Isaac was able to reach hurricane status on September 30, when forecasters predicted it would not." Source? What atmospheric conditions were favorable? Where did it reach hurricane status? Did forecasters predict Isaac would not strengthen when it was becoming a hurricane, or prior?
- "Issac quickly weakened to 80 mph, but was able to attain the same pressure." Dropping 5 mph isn't that significant, so no real need to say quickly. Why did it weaken? Is the pressure important?
- "Isaac encountered cooler air as the storm got closer to Newfoundland as on October 1, Isaac weakened into a tropical storm on October 2." While I'm thinking of it, there are some verbs which you should avoid when writing. Get is one of them. A conjunction is needed, and some distances would be nice.
- "Isaac made landfall in the Avalon Penninsula as 40 mph minimal tropical storm on October 2 and was able to keep tropical cyclone formation with a deep convection." Did it make landfall in or on the penninsula? Check your spelling, peninsula has one n. The last part of that sentence makes absolutely no sense. Tropical cyclone formation? It formed a few days ago. Did it only have one deep convection, lots of deep convection, abundance, superfluity, sufficient, waning, persisting?
- "Soon after, Isaac transitioned into an extratropical storm and merged with a larger extratropical system on October 3 off the Avalon Penninsula." According to the best track map, it merged with the other storm to the northeast of Newfoundland, not near the Avalon Peninsula (again, one n, please check your spelling errors)
- Preps and impact are fairly short, so they should probably be merged
- "Several watches/warnings were issued in association with Hurricane Isaac." What type of watch/warning? Snow watch? Tornado watch? Wind warning? Hurricane warning? Tropical cyclone warnings and watches? Rather than starting with that, why not start with the first watch/warning, and let the information tell the reader there are several.
- "for the Burin and Bonavista Penninsula" Is it one or two peninsulas?
- "The Atlantic Storm Prediction Center released a warning for Prince Edward Island and northern Nova Scotia to expect 30-50mm rainfall totals on October 1 for the newly-formed extratropical system." For Isaac or the extratropical storm it merged with?
- "A rainfall warning was issued for Southeastern Newfoundland also for 40-50mm rainfalls" Does that mean a rainfall warning was issued due to 40-50 mm actually falling or due to the threat of it? While I'm at it, it needs metric conversions.
- "The final warning issued was a tropical storm warning for the Avalon Penninsula on October 2." Shouldn't this go earlier in the paragraph when you mentioned the TC watches/warnings?
- "However, due to Isaac's small size and fast forward speed, winds were lighter over most of the Avalon Peninsula." Over most or the rest of the peninsula?
- "The Canadian buoy 44138 reported wind gusts up to 56 knots and sustained winds of 50 mph" Is that impact or storm history?
- There's surely more, but that's what I saw in a quick read-through. It needs a lot of work done. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to check, do you plan on doing more work on it, or are you completely finished? The article still needs a good bit of work. For example, you shouldn't link to the NRL backup page as a source saying one model predicted it to get to 88 knots. You need a source that says it explictly. You never rewrote anything. The storm history is still poorly written, as demonstrated by the following examples.
- You don't know what a contraction is? That's a fairly basic term in writing. It is combining two words to make one, such as that's in the previous sentence (the combination with that and is). Your article only uses wouldn't. As an addennum, you should avoid possessiveness, as it can be informal. For example, "after the cyclone's formation" could be "after the cyclone formed." The intro is still very short and should be lengthened. Have you googled for any information regarding Newfoundland effects? You should use the TWO's and the discussions, like I've said several times, to make the storm history better. Aside from being very poorly written, the storm history is a bit short. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, just checking. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, why are you tired of asking me for assessments? I provide you ways for you to better your articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll post my comments here, too. I haven't read Hink's above, so there'll probably be some overlap. Overall, the article is decent, but there are a number of things that need to be done.
- More Wikilinks. Provide links to tropical cyclone and Atlantic hurricane in the opening paragraph. The first time a Category is mentioned, it should like to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.
- Spelling of Isaac. It appears as "Issac" multiple times in the body of the article, which is incorrect.
- Some sentences (such as "Rainfall totaled up to 25mm..." are somewhat awkward. In fact, most of the lead is awkward, with short and disconnected sentences.
- "Preparations, Impact and Naming" doesn't need such a long section title. If the only preparation was the issuance of watch or warning, it's fine to put it in a section titled "Impact".
- There should be no spaces between different <ref> tags.
- Citations should all be converted to cite web format.
- "See also" should not include links to pages already linked in the text; therefore, the 2006 season (and once my suggestion above is followed, tropical cyclone) should not be there.
- Remove all contractions; they don't belong in formal writing.
- Isaac didn't "begin as a tropical wave exited Africa". It "originated as a tropical wave that exited Africa". The wave was not Isaac as a result of exiting Africa (work on semantics).
- The bit about not being used in 1982 and 1994 because of El Niño is original research and should not be included.
- In general, there are OR smatterings all across the article - the bit about stronger winds at St. John's, for example.
- Check your comma usage. "...which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning, the next day." contains an extraneous comma, and there are others.
That's it for now. fix these issues and I'll look at it again. —Cuiviénen 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Isaac article
Intro is too long, but otherwise I like it. It would be Start-class as it is now. CrazyC83 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ready for publication. CrazyC83 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- NASA is an agency of the US federal government, so yes. (Usually, if it ends in .gov and it is a federal level group, it is public domain) CrazyC83 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not ready yet. Unencyclopedic tone, OR, and unnecessary information. – Chacor 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Erika('03)-Track.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Erika('03)-Track.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Dingmans Campground Campsite Button Bars
Template:Dingmans Campground Campsite Button Bars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: 1962
There is no point of that. There's not nearly enough information to justify that. A tropical depression section is all that's needed. Just a quick description of the storm history and dates would suffice. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't really merit anything. There are satellite pictures of recent tropical depressions, but no one's saying for us to create Tropical depressions of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
