Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1933 Atlantic hurricane season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 1933 Atlantic hurricane season

Self-nom, I recently finished expanding this article, and I believe it now adheres to the featured article criteria. Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • A few things:
    • What happened with reference #6?
    • What was the link to 1933's ACE? The table is filled out, but there weren't any advisories that I know of... we still need the ref for that, though. Titoxd(?!?) 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your copyediting. I fixed ref 6, though I'm not sure what to do about the ACE. I cannot find a reference for that info. Should we just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Reference for ACE: the best track!--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Hmm... mind providing an inline citation for that one? I don't remember where to find it, and I imagine most users won't. Titoxd(?!?) 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can all the infoboxes be the same size please...and do something about those ugly white gaps. Todd661 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how we can do that. The infoboxes are in template form. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that anything can be done about the white gaps. Without them the layout would be really messed up. Jeltz talk 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All of them appear to be the same size in my browser... which ones are giving you problems? Titoxd(?!?) 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my mistake, all the hurricane boxes are the same and all the tropical storm ones are the same. I've strike out that comment Todd661 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Support. íslenskur fellibylur

#12 (samtal) 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this is of featured status but shouldnt be an article but a list. The page lists all the storms with a summary just like List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season talks about the season itself not individual storms. 2005 Season talks about the overall statistics of the season as a whole while this article gives each storm a section with a short summart. If you were to make the page List of storms in the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season how would it look different than this article? For some reason its hard to put this in words but hopefully you get where I'm going. I do agree though that this article definetely models after 2003 Pacific hurricane season but this brings about another point:2003 Pacific hurricane season doesnt look like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Personally I feel 2005 season should be the model article but my point is the inconcistency in the layout of this articles. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, each season article should give a "short summary for each storm". 2005 Atlantic hurricane season does not comply to this since it merges all the storms into the overall text rather then just meriting them their own section/subsection. I hope a general guideline for layout should be decided upon since this is getting confusing: some articles and lists look the same. - Tutmosis 20:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The 2005 season was very different. There was too much information to have it as a normal page, which necessitated the list of page. For 1933 AHS, there's not a terrible abundance of information, so I based it off the only normal FA season article. Every season article, excluding 2005, has the same format as being articles. Changing all 350 or so season articles to lists would require a lot of effort and is probably not necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay thanks for clearing that up. But List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is pretty similar to this article, shouldn't it be an article not a list? - Tutmosis 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed, we have picked a layout: 2005AHS is the exception, as there are several orders of magnitude of difference in the amount of information available, and there are more storms to talk about. Originally the "List of storms in the 2005AHS" page was an article, then someone asked if it should have been a list... so we're getting mixed signals here. What should it be? Titoxd(?!?) 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, this article look like a list but in a way isnt since most lists do not have much prose but just present names in some order. This is a tough issue and Wikipedia:List guideline isn't much help on giving a definition. As originally I am going to lean more on the list side but it's not up to me and would like to see what the rest of the community thinks. - Tutmosis 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I still have an unanswered question in my mind. How come the featured List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looks the same (format wise) as this article and a lot more season articles. You mentioned you renamed it to "List" on someones request. So what was its name before that? Wasn't it only purpose to list the storms since 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the article which talks about the season itself. So why is that list is similar in format as this season articles? Is it just me or is this not making any sense? - Tutmosis 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The list of 2005 storms was originally what the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looked like. Prior to being at that location (list of 2005 storms), it didn't have its own article. It was just part of the season article. For a long time, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article looked the same as every other season article. Basically, you should ignore 2005. It was extreme circumstances that should not be the model for anything. I hope that makes sense, but this article resembles every other hurricane season article, including two "Good article" season articles and a featured season article, excluding 2005. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It was originally created as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, after the 2005 season article was split after a long debate (see its talk archives about January). Before the fork it looked like this; the consensus was that it was excessively long and had a disproportionately large storms section. The greater the amount of info available on a season, the more non-storms sections in the article. In the case of the 1933 season, there is relatively little info available beyond what is currently embedded in the storms section. I would like to see a more complete discussion of the season's impact though; not just through the individual storm descriptions.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well it's still confusing but never the less I'll vote support. This article is of FA quality and changing it to a list would make matters more confusing. Personally I feel the 2005 is quite a model article, especially the storms section that has all the storms merged together and organized by month. < I can't see how other season articles can not do this. Anyway, hope to see more storm related FACs. :) - Tutmosis 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. These kind of articles should be a summarise of all the individual hurricanes articles. Therefore, many sections are missing: "Impact", "Forecasts", "Preparations"... Even the FA 2003 Pacific hurricane season is missing these sections, and, I think, it doesn't deserve the FA status. CG 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There's only two indivdual hurricane articles for the season, and I believe it summarizes it well. You have to understand that the season was 73 years ago! I doubt there were any pre-season forecasts. As for impact, forecasts, and preparations, the season summary section summarizes those aspects, but there's not enough info for separate sections. I don't know why a featured season should have to have those sections. It wasn't 2005, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, that it is the exact polar opposite of the approach WikiProject Tropical cyclones is taking, which indicates that season articles should be the priority, and then, only if these articles are going to be overwhelmed by excessive information on individual storms, the season article becomes a summary of the individual articles. In this case, the historical record gives us only this amount of information about the entire season. We don't have the benefit of satellite imagery, or in many cases, even damage reports; simply put, the information doesn't exist to warrant as many sections. Titoxd(?!?) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. I haven't gone through the article in detail, but have still found some possible issues:
    • {{1933 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} is used in only one article (this one), why is it not substituted? Also, {{Atlantic hurricane season categories|1933}} can be substituted unless the category divisions are expected to change often.
    • "Sources" should be changed to "References".
    • A one liner intro to the timeline in "Stroms" section (either as a caption or a paragraph) would help. (At least mention it is a timeline)
    • In the lead: "It is important to note, however, that [...], especially those [..]." Too many guarding terms.
    • Also in the lead: "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin." (This can go to footnotes. Doesn't seem worth including in the lead. I may be wrong here.) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I got all of them but the lead problems. Should I just delete the guarding terms? Though I did not add it, I feel it does serve a purpose, as there could well have been more than 21 storms. We just don't have today's technology to determine it. Also, the "These dates..." appears in every tropical cyclone season article, so, in conforming to the layout already set up, it should remain there. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Substing some of the standard templates TC WikiProject uses strikes me as sensible (a AWB run will sort that). I dislike with the "These dates..." start to the lead; that may be the standard format, but the notable exceptions are the two seasonal FAs (2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2003 Pacific hurricane season), where the lead sentence gives an interesting (DYK-style) fact; and the boring "the season ran from X to Y" is relegated to paragraph 2.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find the promised template substitution. I have given the article a copyedit, but there are a few more issues. The article is inconsistant on use of non-breaking spaces while refering to casualities. The article, at places, has words like 20&nbsp;people and at others 20 people. Consistancy is required (either way), and I personally feel that since "people" is not a unit of measurement, there shouldn't be non-breaking spaces. I have also edited the lead article I pointed out. Feel free to revert if you feel it got worse. One question possibly un-related to the article (showing my lack of knowledge): How did storm 11 start before storm 10, and 14 before 13? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I added the missing nbsp;s, as I had missed them the first time I gave a pass-through the article; since there were a few users that insisted on not having numbers + anything that could be remotely construed as a unit, I just went through the safer route and added all of them. As for the storm formation: 10 did form before 11, as well as 13/14... they are named/numbered when they reach tropical storm status. Titoxd(?!?) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Support. Since there appeared a consensus on template substitution, I went ahead to substitute them. I would also suggest to discuss this in the WikiProject page, so that (if recommended), it can be done en masse to all relevant articles. Tito has already fixed the non-breaking space issue. So it is time I give my support to the article. Good work, guys. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is not comprehensive. For example, a hurricane that killed 184 people gets only a brief paragraph. I've heard that this is because there simply isn't enough information available. Looking through the references it seems that all of the information was gleaned from the internet. Indeed, only three contemporary sources are cited (all from the noaa.gov archives). Of course there isn't much information available about the 1933 season on the internet. The internet didn't exist in 1933. I guarantee there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news articles available about these storms in microfilm reels at your public library. This article should incorporate the numerous newspaper articles published about these storms at the time, not just the smattering of secondary sources available at the NOAA's website. Kaldari 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As an example, I have added a paragraph about the destruction caused by Hurricane 14 based on a contemporary New York Times article. Kaldari 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kaldari brings up an excellent point. The article can and should be fleshed out a lot more from microfilm and dead-tree sources. -- BrianSmithson 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking good. I've copy edited the article, but I still have a few concerns. First, there are several places in the text where we are told that "damages, if any, are unknown." Some of these statements are footnoted, but many are not. This makes we wonder: Are these unreferenced declarations of unknown damages there because damages are really unknown or because the editors couldn't find anything? In short, I think these statements should all be sourced or they should be removed. Secondly, a few places state that a particular storm "lost its identity". This sounds really strange to me; what is it supposed to mean? I was tempted to replace all of them with "dissipated", but I wasn't sure that this is what was meant. Can these be changed? Third, I question whether the See also links to List of notable tropical cyclones and List of Atlantic hurricane seasons are needed. For the former, certainly the fact that a few of the storms on the article page itself have articles about them (linked to per summary style) should be enough. Why is it pertinent to have a link to a list that includes Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Hugo? It's like adding List of African Americans to the Michael Jordan page. As for the latter link, we've already got links to the 1931–5 seasons in the infobox. Is it really necessary to have links to 1993 and 2004? I'd ax both. I've also left an invisible notation where there was some weaseling going on. Over all, it's a good piece, and I will glady support once these issues have been addressed and/or dealt with. — BrianSmithson 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair points. First, I tried looking high and low for damage or impact, but some I did not find anything. As such, I removed the "damage is unknown" from the storm sections. For the sections where I said lost its identity, I changed the first one to last observed, as we don't know for a fact the storms actually dissipated then, and the second one to dissipated, as the article did say it dissipated. The See also links is project wide standard we use; all season articles mention the List of notable tropical cyclones and the list of seasons, just for reader's ease. I guess so if they're curious about checking other seasons, but don't feel like going to the top. BTW, thank you for that good copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you taken a look at the one use of weasel words I identified? If that's taken care of, I'll ignore the "See also" business (which someone should change project-wide, I think). — BrianSmithson 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh yea. I know it's a weasle word, but the source (monthly weather review) says it was one of the most severe in the Mid-Atlantic. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Support. I took care of the weasel word. — BrianSmithson 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • See above, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A ProQuest search of the Historical New York Times database for the word "hurricane" during the year 1933 returns 400 articles, many of which would be helpful here. And that's just one newspaper—there's plenty of reliable source material out there. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But if the newspaper requires a subscription to access the archives, that isn't exactly free. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, right? I only prefer to use sources that anyone can access. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Then you're restricting yourself to using inferior sources in virtually all cases, because you're making it impossible to use newspaper articles (which usually require a subscription after a week), magazine articles, journal articles, and most importantly, books. Wikipedia makes information free by using free and non-free sources to write the best possible summary of a subject. Restricting ourselves to using freely available information as sources would be extremely damaging to our mission. Rather, we must find the best sources, regardless of their availability (within reason), and use them to create the best free summary of the topic possible. Getting NYT articles is certainly within reason in this case—any decent-sized library in the US should have them, and I'd imagine that many large libraries around the world have them as well. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. Well, I checked in my school library, and their newspaper records don't go back that far (~1970). Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Try your public library. They usually have microfilm archives of major newspapers going back into the 1800s. Kaldari 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I just finished adding information from an internet based newspaper archive, located here, so they are completely verifiable. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose, I feel that there is very little information on the impact of most of the landfalling storms in the article, they cannot really be said to be comprehensive. Whilst NOAA sources are canonical for information on the storm, press coverage is the primary sourcing for impact information. The 400 articles that Spangineer refers will be freely available at libraries; as will other articles from other major newspapers. It is unfortunate that they are not online, but that's life. While it is likely that a signifcant number of those articles will be redundant to NOAA's information, there undoubtedly will be some useful articles there. This article cannot really be said to represent Wikipedia's best work if an afternoon in a public library could turn up a significant amount of new information.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, with all the changes including to the lead I think this is enough now.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is not enough information on the impact of the landfalling storms. If more information is found at libraries, or online still then it may qualify for featured. I however would support an upgrade to A-class or Good article status, because it is only rated B-class at the moment. Hello32020 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm working on it. I found a newspaper database online so anyone can verify it, and I'm in the process of searching through the various newspapers to get some impact. I recently expanded storms 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll now Support due to the large amount of information added by hink. Deserves featured status now. Good job hink. Hello32020 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Someone going to fix the first sentence?
    • "... though one storm existed prior to the start of the season." (1) This tortured use of "existed" seems to be cropping up all too often on WP. What does it mean? Did it exist for all of eternity before the start of the season? I think that you mean "... though there was one storm before the start of the season." But please give us a more precise idea of the time—then it may qualify as encyclopedic language: "in the month before the start of the season"? (2) Most style guides say to use ALthough in formal style. (3) "prior to" is an ungainly Latinism for something simpler and native: "before". (4) The article is about hurricanes. Was this storm a hurricane?
    • "... on record, with 21 recorded ..."—awkward repetition.
    • "prior to 1960s (before technologies such as satellite monitoring were unavailable), historical cyclonic data may be inaccurate, and tropical storms or depressions that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially those of relatively short duration, may have remained undetected."—Here's the "prior to" thing again. And shouldn't it be the 1960s? Do you mean "available"? "And", not "or" before "depressions". Remove "relatively". "Remained" --> "may not have been detected".

Well, that's the first paragraph. The density of problems, and the inattention to detail that they demonstrate, suggest that the whole thing needs an hour or two by a proper copy-editor before we take it seriously as "professional" writing, as required. Tony 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Not enough information on each storm. I'd move it up to A-class and I would definitely support a GA nomination though, but this is one step too far IMO at this time. CrazyC83 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Now support, due to the new information found. CrazyC83 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The new information that has been added needs a good copyediting. There are several grammatical problems, for example, "During the storm, there were at least 10 cases of looting, all of whom were executed." Kaldari 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. While this is indeed an excellently researched and presented article, I do not believe the first criterion is filled, "(a) Well written means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant." On the contrary, there are many instances of awkward wording, run-on sentences, and sentences that do not convey their meaning very well. I have some examples:

The season was consistently active -What does this mean?
For hurricane 2,the hurricane brushed southern Tobago and made landfall on northeastern Venezuela on June 28, becoming the earliest known tropical cyclone in the area. -earliest in the year, or the first ever recorded there?
For 3, The rainfall led to flooding and washouts -explain what a "washout" is, in lieu of discriptive wikilink.
For 10, Due to uncertainty in its position, tropical storm warnings were issued for portions of the southern Texas coastline. -this could use some further explanation, something like "Because forecasters were unsure what the impact would be," or something to that effect
For 11, a tropical storm was first seen to the east of the northern Lesser Antilles -this really isn't accurate, tropical storms aren't seen, they are deduced from ship reports and such (at least, they were back in the day)

These are just a few examples of course. I did a copyedit of the opening paragraphs, but the entire article could use one. In addition to these problems, the individual storm sections do not do a very good job of segwaying between the storm's timeline and its impact. If these issues are fixed, I will support. -Runningonbrains 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Just went over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any other issues? Titoxd(?!?) 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Now better? Titoxd(?!?) 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast: your fine-toothed comb has left problems in just about every sentence of the lead:

    • "The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record." "Was" would be more natural here.
    • "The season, which began on 1 June 1933 and lasted until 30 November 1933, is surpassed only by the 2005 season, which broke the record with its 28 storms." Flabby. Try: "The season, from 1 June 1933 to 30 November 1933, was surpassed only by the 2005 season, with its 28 storms." Of course 2005 broke the record if it was the only one to surpass 1933.
    • "The 1933 season saw tropical activity before its start, as one storm formed prior to the start of the conventionally delimited season; by the time the season ended, twenty-one tropical cyclones were detected that year." Very flabby, and illogical to boot. Try: "There was already significant tropical activity before the start of the 1933 season, and by the end of the season, 21 tropical cyclones had been detected." Note that "21" is used in the next paragraph: consistency is required.
    • The status of the next two sentences in this problematic first paragraph is illogical, both in relation to the previous material and to each other. "Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable. Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected." Try reversing the sentences, so that our poor readers first understand why you're making the point. Perhaps parentheses around the second sentence will do the trick—you decide. "Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected. (Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable.)
    • "Several of the storms had significant impact on land; seven storms killed more than 20 people. All but one of the 21 known storms affected land at some point during their lifetimes." The "land" point is repeated.

This is not good enough, and these problems are not buried further down, but right at the top, which you'd have paraded as one of our best on the home page .... Tony 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is based on preference. I personally believe that "... is the second-most active Atlantic..." is more natural, that saying there was "Already significant tropical activity before the start of the season" implies there was much more than there actually was, and that the order for "Because technologies... tropical cyclones that did not approach land" doesn't really matter in the context of the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's right, it's based on my preference for logic and ease of reading. You can use "is" in the first sentence, but it conjures up the act of looking at records (in the present tense), rather than what actually happened in 1933. I still think that this historical topic should be introduced with "was". King Henry VII haS more conflict with Rome than any other English monarch ... hmmmm, looking at a grid showing this info, perhaps. Reword my suggestion for the second sentence—you know the topic—but it's no good at the moment. I don't comprehend your objection to my advice about reversing the order of the last two sentences in the first para. They certainly don't flow smoothly at the moment. Let me know when you fixed the lead, and I'll have another look. Then, we'll deal with the rest of the text. Tony 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I switched the last two sentences of the first paragraph. I left it as "is", because at the time, the season was the most active at the time, but it still is the second most active. I also fixed the redundant "land". I disagree with the location of where the total number of storms formed, so I changed it. Before it came after 2005's record number, so I put it in the first sentence. As such, I altered the sentence mentioning the preseason storm to give a different fact; a tropical cyclone was active for all but 13 days from the formation of the second storm to the dissipation of the 18th storm. It probably will need a bit of rewording, though the content is better now, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep going. My eyes should not be able to rall at random on problems such as:
In northeastern Venezuela, the hurricane destroyed many houses, businesses, and boats, while strong winds downed power lines. Many people were killed, and property damages totaled to over $386,000 (1933 USD).[1] In Cuba, the storm killed 22 people, while damages amounted to $4 million (1933 USD).[5] Finally, the hurricane caused severe damage and several deaths in northeastern Mexico.[1] In all, the hurricane killed 35 people.[6]
    • "While" is a problematic connector. Do you mean that at the time the power lines were downed, the hurrican destroyed many houses etc? No, I think "and" is what you mean. Same in the subsequent sentence. "Totaled to over" is ungrammatical (remove "to", but why not something simpler: "was more than". "Damage" is standard, unless you're a materials engineer (even then, it's awkward). "Finally"—Do you mean at the end of the storm, or the end of this paragraph? It makes the readers feel tired, so just get rid of it.
    • In the subsequent section, every sentence starts with "The storm" or an equivalent item. See if you can use semicolons to join them into one structure, removing the need to trot out the subject each time. Where is the metric equivalent for "nine inches"?

Can you find fresh eyes to go through the whole text? Tony 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed "while" to ands, removed finally, and changed Storm 3 a bit. I don't see the problem with "Property damages totaled to over 386,000 dollars" at all. It is based on preference, and I prefer to use a strong verb and the word damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the problem is "totaled to". You can total "up to", you can total "over", but not "to over". Tony 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)