Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 2006 Atlantic hurricane season 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2008.
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.
Featured article 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.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Citation
This page was cited by Klotzbach, Phillip J. and Gray, William M. Summary of 2006 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity and Verification of Author's Seasonal and Monthly Forecasts. Colorado State University, 2006-11-17.
Citation
This page was cited by National Climatic Data Center Climate of 2006: Atlantic Hurricane Season. 2006-11-06
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Discussion should be limited to this article and related articles. Please keep off-topic discussion to a minimum.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Monthly Event Archives: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov
Storm Event Archives: Alberto, Beryl, Chris, Debby, Ernesto, Florence, Gordon, Helene, Isaac
Specialized Discussion: ACE calcs, Zeta, Re: AoIs

Other Basin Talkpages (2006): Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian

Contents

[edit] GA Review

The article is very well written and quite an interesting read. I believe it meets the Good Article criteria with one major exception. The 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' has no externally verifiable sources whatsoever. It's sole "source", is a wikilink to a subpage of the article's talk page, which outlines calculations that were done, apparently by the wikipedia author him/herself. This unfortunately is original research, and goes against wikipedia's policy, as well as the Good Article criteria. Valid external sources need to be added for this information, as well as for the second paragraph which talks about the calculated average in comparison to other hurricane seasons. The article cannot be passed until this is resolved.

There's another manual of style issue as well, though minor. The date wikilinking is incorrect. According to the manual of style, only full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked, so as to work properly with user's individual date preference settings. Single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked. I don't think there's any single years, but there are many month/day combinations wikilinked throughout the article that should be resolved.

Other than these two issues (one major and one minor), the article is in good shape and can be promoted to GA status once they are resolved. I'll place this article on hold in the meantime. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The on hold time has elapsed, and the concerns were not addressed. As a matter of fact, an editor removed the {{OR}} tag that I added to the ACE section, indicating that there is no desire to resolve this issue. The manual of style issues were also not addressed. The article is now being failed at WP:GAN, primarily on account of WP:OR issues and manual of style issues.
I really hate being a hard ass here, but WP:OR is pretty serious, and a major policy (not a guideline) of wikipedia. I can't pass an article with original research in it, and citing a subpage of the article's own talk page with no sources on it of how these calculations are done or used and accepted, is not acceptable for verification. Other than this, the article is quite good, and could very well pass. Dr. Cash 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta

Does zeta really need it's own section? I plan on bringing this to PR by the end of the month, and don't think it does. Juliancolton (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read up, and try not to open a can of worms. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A can of worms? Juliancolton (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was already put on WP:LAME, so I don't want you to open up a can of worms by discussing it to death again. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh. And I believe that I could try GAC again, as I have fixed the source for that ACE. Juliancolton (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article assessment

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good seasonal article, but it needs some more work before being considered good.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Some non-breaking spaces are needed. The first sentence in the article should be more interesting. Better Wiki-linking is needed, as well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Several sections and statements are unsourced (Debby's entire section is unsourced, and the first half of Florence's section sources a discussion that certainly does not cover its earliest history). Zeta's section needs a source, as well.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I'm a little concerned that the article was not updated for the post-season analysis. Additionally, I'd like there to be a better balance between section lengths. Chris's section is longer than Ernesto's, despite Ernesto being the most notable storm of the season.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck improving the article

--♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Season impact

2006 Atlantic hurricane statistics
Storm Name Active Dates Storm category

at peak intensity

 Max

Wind

(mph)

 Min.

Press.

(mbar)

 ACE Landfall(s) Damage

(millions

USD)

 Deaths
Where When Wind

(mph)
Alberto June 10–14 Tropical Storm 70 995  2.76 Adams Beach, Florida June 13 40 0.42  0 (3) 
Unnamed July 17–18 Tropical Storm 50 998  0.645 none 0  0 
Beryl July 18–21 Tropical Storm 60 1000  2.30 Nantucket, Massachusetts July 21 45 minimal 0 
Chris July 31–August 5 Tropical Storm 65 1001  2.35 none minimal 0 
Debby August 21–August 26 Tropical Storm 50 999 2.14 none none 0 
Ernesto August 24–September 1 Category 1 Hurricane 75 985 5.17 Playa Cazonal, Cuba August 28 50 500 7 (4)
Plantation Key, Florida August 30 50
Miami-Dade county, Florida August 30 50
Oak Island, North Carolina September 31 70
Florence September 3–September 12 Category 1 Hurricane 90 974 10.05 none 0.2 0 
Gordon September 11–September 20 Category 3 Hurricane 120 955 21.21 none Unknown 0 
Helene September 12–September 24 Category 3 Hurricane 120 955 24.15 none 0 0 
Isaac September 27–October 2 Category 1 Hurricane 85 985 5.77 none minimal 0 
Season Aggregates
10 cyclones June 10–October 2   120 955 78.5 6 landfalls 500 7 (7)

[edit] GA

This was just nominated for GA again, but the WP:OR issue with the 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' still remains. The source for this is not a valid source -- it's a talk page to a wikipedia article, for calculations that were done. There needs to be a reliable source for this independent of this article. Without it, this is clearly original research, and the article cannot pass GA with original research, per WP:WIAGA. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Juliancolton (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some slight inconsistencies between the source and what's in the article, which means the ACE table was clearly not from that source. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? I used a NHC source, and I changed the article to what the NHC says tha ACE was. Juliancolton (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, citing the best track doesn't list any mention of the ACE for each storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So, for lack of a good source, should I kill the ACE section completely? Juliancolton (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see where the ACE is in the source, which seems ok. But the numbers that you're providing in the wikitable do not all agree with the numbers in the source; several agree, but several don't, and you're not rounding correctly. Plus, you have data for an unnamed storm and no data for Isaac.

Also, you should have a source on the text paragraph in the ACE section, defining what it is you're talking about, in addition to the table. The citation should preferably be in inline format, so that it appears in the 'references' section. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Juliancolton (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The original numbers in the wikitables are correct. The National Hurricane Center issues a report on every storm after it is over. That is where the official numbers come from. The correct numbers start here.---CWY2190TC 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think because the ACE calculations in that source come from the TCRs it is fine to use that one. Juliancolton (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The numbers in the article still do not agree with the official, NOAA source. I don't care about the wikipedia "source" -- that's original research, and should be deleted from wikipedia. Only use the official sources here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Then delete the table because that site is using incorrect data. ---CWY2190TC 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, the ACE calcs page cleary cites the TCRs as sources. Juliancolton (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It really all boils down to what is a reliable source. What source is a reader more inclined to trust? (a) data that is published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency, and the official authority on such things, or (b) a talk page in wikipedia containing calculations that were done by a member of the community, of which I have no idea who you are and what your credentials are. Granted, the calculations "look" ok, but they still differ from the officially published source (perhaps the official source has additional data that you haven't found?). Plus, wikipedia articles do not cite other wikipedia articles as sources, and especially do not cite talk pages as sources. External reliable sources in print or online media are required. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it is factually wrong and I can prove it. This site uses operational data, or wind speeds from the advisories issued every 6 hours. ACE calculations use best track data, or wind speeds issued after the storm in a report by the National Hurricane Center. The last storm of the season, Hurricane Issac dissipated on October 3rd. The site you claim is a "reliable source" was last updated on October 4th. But the report on Issac, which contains the official best track data wasn't released until November 16. The source you want to use is factually incorrect and so should be deleted. ---CWY2190TC 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was part of the discussion in 2005, and I wanted to keep the ACE calculations. The person calling this original research is mistaken, because ACE calcs are simple calculations that can be reproduced by the reader. The data is all available. One just has to plug it into the formula. See the first section of Wikipedia:These are not original research. The individual calculations are helpful to anyone looking for statistics. However on this page it seems the errors might stem from out-of-date information or serious rounding of the numbers.Clobberella (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Q

A Yes, I always like to receive feedback on my writing of articles.

Q

A I don't do a large amount of writing outside of Wikipedia, and if I do, it's mostly school-related.

Q

A My writing style has changed greatly since I joined the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. As I continue to read the many FAs within the project and write my own articles, I feel that my writing style is progressively improving. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.

Pass

Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.[2]

Pass

Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.

Pass

Written from a neutral point of view.

Pass

Article is stable, with no active edit wars.

Pass

If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

Pass

Overall

Pass

Reviewed by TheNobleSith (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

What's with the intro to this article? And why is the font red? I'm not sure how to fix this, but please, someone do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSoko315 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been hacked! TorstenGuise (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the history, so yea, it looks like it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the page and placed a notice in the admin vandalism page. Hoping they will stop the vandal. The Shadow Knows (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was in {{Infobox hurricane season}}. -- RattleMan 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In both, if we look at their history... but it seems that I reverted a little too late... Someone addressed this before... The Shadow Knows (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I undid the process once in the history, but then it disappeared, and so did my undoing. I'm confused. However, it appears the page is fixed, so that's good. Robert (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in brackets in the deaths column

I'm sure this is me being stupid, but in the death column, why are some numbers in brackets? --194.81.189.42 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The numbers you are speaking of are deaths that were considered indirect. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone