Talk:Hurricane Georges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Hurricane Georges has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles 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 reassessment.
To-do list for Hurricane Georges: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Longer intro
  • Non-infrared storm pics
  • Shorten preparations
  • Aftermath
  • Remove trivia and find a place for info, if necessary
  • Standardize reference notation
Priority 3  

Contents

[edit] Todo

Biggest problem is confused structure. Is cuba impact covered in the impact section or the United States section? Jdorje 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do this one next. Here's some impact pictures.

Hurricanehink 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Caribbean is done! It's getting there, well... slowly. This could eventually become an FA, IMO, based on the amount of information on it. So I don't lose it, here's a link about southern Florida evacuation orders and impact. Hurricanehink 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this one's getting big. I haven't read through this whole thing yet (I'll wait until you're done), but just glancing through it looks like there's room for more pictures. — jdorje (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

100% right about pictures. This is just a first run through. Cuba and Hispaniola, in particular, need pics. Hurricanehink 12:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Added metric conversions. I know it is not a start class, but how much more does it need for A class? Hurricanehink 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's probably at or close to or even past A-class by now. Are you done with your edits? If so I'll give it a run-through. I do still think it needs more pictures though. To bump it to A-class we just nominate it on the wikiproject-talk page, we'll get a few more eyes on it. Probably EBrown will jump right in and upgrade it. We should also start working on FA-class for Okee, Floyd, and Georges hurricanes. After the peer review (completed for Okee, in progress for floyd) I guess we just nominate it. Even if it fails we're sure to get more feedback. — jdorje (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm done my run through. Hurricanehink 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a full copyedit read-through run. It is extraordinarily complete and well-referenced. It might be too detailed in some places...it's 36k long now, which is okay, but if we add more we should cut down some of the detail (particularly in the U.S. sections) to keep it around 35k. There were a couple of places where I added {{tcunits}}; probably these just need to have "(1998 USD)" added but you'll know for sure. Check out my changes at this link if you want to verify them or to see what I did (I added   in a lot of places, which is used to control wrapping to make numbers or short phrases more readible). Also, I still think we need more pictures. — jdorje (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are now a few red links. Some of these may need to be fixed, but they shouldn't be removed - some may just be for articles that haven't been written yet (e.g., Artibonite Valley). — jdorje (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Fixed USD's, and removed or fixed the red links. The only one I left was Artibonite Valley, which could be written eventually (I know they all could, but this one I felt was more important). Hurricanehink 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coral reef

Here's an idea for someone who wants to help. I am too lazy to do it, but someone can do a section about the coral reef in the impact section. In Florida, 36 colonies were lost, according to here, and this page shows pictures. Here is a page about what occurrs during a hurricane's passage, and this page shows how the coral was lost in the Lesser Antilles. Such a section might get a little boring and a little hard to do, but it could be part of a broader Environmental Damage section, which could include if animals were killed from the flooding in Mississippi or other damage to the environment. I'm not sure if the crop damage should be included there, as it all fits into the overall damage to an area. However, if there's enough info, someone could make a section about damage to mother nature. Hurricanehink 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Floyd also has an "Environmental effects" section in the Aftermath. This sounds like a similar thing. — jdorje (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info on evacuations

For more on evacuations, shelters, and traffic flow, you can go here. I can't go through the 100 pages of information, but it has good info on the hurricane if anyone wants to add it. Hurricanehink 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Done! I guess... Hey, I'm only human (this is in reference to the notes I added). Next on the todo list is metric conversions. Hurricanehink 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of notes. BTW, if you don't add a "name" to a reference, it will display a little prettier at the bottom. I think names should only be used when a reference is used more than once (but it's not a big deal, if you're not sure if the reference will be used it's fine just to add the name). — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Aww, I just put a ref for every link. I'll do that later on. (I'll do conversions later as well. (Linked so I can do it at school). Hurricanehink 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

There's a whole collection of satellite images here. — jdorje (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There's probably enough images, but good find nevertheless. Hurricanehink 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The image count is probably adequate or excessive even. I would like to see a bit more variety in the satellite pics. I mean 3 IR ones and no visible? I'd say one of each is much more appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Never thought of it, but visibles would look very nice in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next TODO

I bumped this to A-class. Taking it to FA-class will be a lot of work since it's such a big article. For one thing, the quality of citations needs to be improved (see Hurricane Floyd for sample style). — jdorje (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Added HPC Rainfall link. It has "updated" information when compared to the TPC report on Georges, due to the later availability of more complete rainfall information from Puerto Rico. Decided not to include rainfall images for Puerto Rico and the United States into the article, due images remark from above. User Talk:thegreatdr 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article could do with splitting the impact section into Preparations, Impact and Aftermath. It may need a bit of aggressive editing to reduce the length slightly too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Big yes on the last one. I split up the preparations, and I'll have to find some aftermath. The preparations seems to be a little too long, so that's where a good cleanup/removing is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
On a separate note, I found this, and from a quick glance, it may be useful. I didn't read it, but those more familiar with the storm can tell me... Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some copy-editing to this one...this didn't require it as much. However, the preparations section needs a rewrite; it mentions the evacuation patterns of the people in Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle, and while that's great, it essentially says the same thing for all three of them. It could say the same thing in less than half the words. Other than that it looks great to me (although I really think it could use a visible image). bob rulz 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be split up by region, similar to Hurricane Isabel? The two first ones should be Effects of Hurricane Georges in Puerto Rico and Effects of Hurricane Georges in Mississippi, though other U.S. states could probably get it as well (Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana). If that is done, it would allow for this article to not be as long. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you used that Isabel pic in all the articles. If you're interested I made this one of Georges in about the same proportions :link. I'm still looking for some really good landfall pics over Mississippi and Puerto Rico (as well as Hispaniola and Cuba). Good kitty 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, but is there one of it at its peak intensity? (just curious) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The only one I could find was this [1], but it was cut down the middle. Also, the B&W one in the article infobox and the AVHRR I put on the season page are both borderline category 4 hurricanes. Nothing else seems to exist. Good kitty 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Aww, that would've been nice. What about that program you use? Is there an image of Georges at that time period? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked, but there was nothing there. The pic in the infobox isn't so bad because I forgot that it was still a powerful cat4 at the time. This thing lost its eye almost as soon as it peaked, just before it took a trip to one Caribbean island after another. It never really got a chance to reorganize. I found a good pic of it at landfall, although it was extremely corrupt. I fixed it up a bit and put it on the main page. Good kitty 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Given how much more work is needed, I propose it be dropped to GA class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

A good clean-up should fix it.Mitchcontribs 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R

I must disagree with the delisting of this article, as being "clean" is not in the GA criteria, and I can find no major fault with the article from a GA standpoint besides the odd "other notes" section which should probably be incorporated into the rest of the article if necessary. That alone doesn't seem to me to be a good reason for this article to not be a GA, and therefore, i'm filing a WP:GA/R over this article. Homestarmy 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I meant to drop it to GA, but another user, who focuses on the same topic suggested B, so I took his advice. Sorry if it sets you off. If you want, i will have it quickly back to GA.Mitchcontribs 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just saw this on the log was all, its nothing personal, there's no hurry. For all I know, I might be wrong about this article, I just don't see why is all. Homestarmy 00:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well let me talk to the user again, and besides when my project is done, I hope this to be a FA. Its certainly not A class like it was.Mitchcontribs 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Following the GA review that restored GA status to the article, I've bumped it up to its previous status as A-Class. The only two things that may be considered fixable are the trivia section (which can be merged/deleted either way) and the last few references that need a fact-check. Overall, everything else looks ok. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R results

In a 6 to 0 unanimous decision, arrived after several editors who brought up points I didn't notice agreed that the problems were solved, this article has been relisted as a GA. While there was one recommendation to maintain B status until it was ready, it seems pretty clear to me from the comments afterwards that it is indeed quite ready. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 28 Homestarmy 06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)