Talk:Hurricane Kenna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hurricane Kenna is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||
 |
Hurricane Kenna is part of the "Retired Pacific hurricanes" series, a featured topic which has been identified as one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
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. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
[edit] Todo
More impact. Jdorje 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- How's that? Is it a B-class? I doubt it, but I'm just checkin'. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite. A damage total would be nice, along with more info in general. Retired hurricanes should generally have a higher standard for articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but retirement means so much less outside of the Atlantic and West Pacific. In terms of actual damage this storm was comparable to 2005's Bret, so I wouldn't expect a very big impact section from this storm. However as a Category 5 hurricane a fairly hefty storm history should be possible. In particular the NHC struggled with the intensity forecast, look at this graph.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, but how do you know the actual damage was similar to Bret's? The article says that 80 to 90% of the houses were damaged in one city, a few houses were destroyed. Also, Kenna is one of 5 retired EPAC hurricanes. You're right though, storm history should be longer. 48 hours before becoming a Cat. 5 it was only forecasted to get to 85 mph winds! --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah its crazy on the intensity, they admit that they always have problems with rapid intensifications. The TCR gives $5 million damages in Puerto Vallarta (population about 150K). According to this site San Blas has about 12K inhabitants. From that fact, my guess that the damage is about that is reasonable I think. However, reasoning (good or bad) is no good for the article, a number would be good...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I should look before I speak shouldn't I? this USA Today article says early estimates of "more than $50 million". However my guess is almost certainly correct to within an order of magnitude, and <$100 million in Mexico will not give much info.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah its crazy on the intensity, they admit that they always have problems with rapid intensifications. The TCR gives $5 million damages in Puerto Vallarta (population about 150K). According to this site San Blas has about 12K inhabitants. From that fact, my guess that the damage is about that is reasonable I think. However, reasoning (good or bad) is no good for the article, a number would be good...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, but how do you know the actual damage was similar to Bret's? The article says that 80 to 90% of the houses were damaged in one city, a few houses were destroyed. Also, Kenna is one of 5 retired EPAC hurricanes. You're right though, storm history should be longer. 48 hours before becoming a Cat. 5 it was only forecasted to get to 85 mph winds! --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but retirement means so much less outside of the Atlantic and West Pacific. In terms of actual damage this storm was comparable to 2005's Bret, so I wouldn't expect a very big impact section from this storm. However as a Category 5 hurricane a fairly hefty storm history should be possible. In particular the NHC struggled with the intensity forecast, look at this graph.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite. A damage total would be nice, along with more info in general. Retired hurricanes should generally have a higher standard for articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA on hold
I recently reviewed this article and I really feel that it is not ready to be a Good Article. After comparing this article to Hurricane Andrew (which is a Good Article), I rated it in the following way:
Well written: Failed, see below
Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed, many good references.
Broad in its coverage: Passed, includes all necessary information
Has Neutral Point of View: Passed, seems to be NPOV, statements about its destructive power and notability are stated objectively.
Stable: Passed, not frequently edited
Pictures: Passed, five meaningful pictures
I feel this article is poorly written. There are a few instances needing copyediting for grammar. Several confusing phrases appear (the first paragraph includes the phrases "strengthen lesser" and "favorable upper-level conditions" which made me scratch my head). The "Storm history" section is repetitive ("shortly after" is used far too many times). And overall, it just doesn't seem to flow well. This article does seem very promising (and I think that next time around it will be one), but I feel that this article needs more time and rewriting before it can be considered a Good Article. Thunderforge 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for not being clear of what I meant. Basically, I mean that there are some sentences that are overly complex, such as the second one. I think that by reading the article aloud a few times, the instances where things just don't sound right will become evident. As for instantly failing the article, I apologize for that too. It's been a long time since I've reviewed Good Article Candidates and I wasn't aware that there was an "On Hold" status now. I would have given this article that rating had I known at the time. Thunderforge 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, that makes sense. I gave it a copyedit, and I don't see anything wrong after two reads. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Passed GA
I made a few needed copyedits, and it's now suitable IMHO to be passed as a Good Article. So have you wished it, so shall it be... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
