Talk:Hurricane Gracie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hurricane Gracie 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. | |||
|
||||
 |
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. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Jeanne
Hurricane Jeanne was rather reminiscent of Gracie, was she not? - Cuivienen 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, actually kinda. I agree with you Cuinieven.
- Both formed in September
- Both looped around in the Atlantic.
- Both struck the east coast as category 3 hurricanes.
- Both had 120 mph winds at landfall.
- Both were the first major hurricanes to hit the east coast in over 8 years.
- Both brushed the north side of Hispaniola as weak cyclones.
- Pressure readings were the exactly same for both storms: 950mb.
But what really got me were the similarities i found with the two infamous Allisons. Cyclone1 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Todo
Intro, impact. Jdorje 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Impact section looks good, needs sources. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Gracie was a wet storm for Virginia. I'm likely to prepare a rainfall graphic for the system this week. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rainfall graphic added. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gracie was a wet storm for Virginia. I'm likely to prepare a rainfall graphic for the system this week. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment. The preparations section seems unnecessarily long... --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should we restrict it to gale and hurricane watch/warnings? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yea, good idea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I wanted to leave in one line about the small craft remaining in port north of the gale warning which was still in effect, but took out all the small craft warnings which preceded the issuance of the hurricane watch and succeeded the dropping of the gale warnings. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. My only other concern with that is the times; are they in EDT or UTC? The format for TC articles is either to use UTC or to say "A hurricane warning was issued X hours before landfall". The same goes with the storm history. I'd like if the landfall time was listed in UTC, personally. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're actually in EST. I can convert them easy enough to UTC. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're actually in EST. I can convert them easy enough to UTC. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. My only other concern with that is the times; are they in EDT or UTC? The format for TC articles is either to use UTC or to say "A hurricane warning was issued X hours before landfall". The same goes with the storm history. I'd like if the landfall time was listed in UTC, personally. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I wanted to leave in one line about the small craft remaining in port north of the gale warning which was still in effect, but took out all the small craft warnings which preceded the issuance of the hurricane watch and succeeded the dropping of the gale warnings. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, good idea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Was Gracie retired?
There is some confusion over whether Gracie was retired. See Talk:List_of_retired_Atlantic_hurricanes#Retirement_of_Gracie for the discussion. — jdorje (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to this WMO Newsletter Gracie was retired. PenguinCDF 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overall agreement on how short the article was
Sections are really short all around, and there isn't a great deal of information. Downgraded to Stub. CrazyC83 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No information on this at all...or very little. Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No one apparently checked the NHC archive. The article has been filled out, and promoted to B class. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gracie was named when it was declared a tropical depression
Does anyone else know of any other tropical cyclone in the Atlantic Basin that was named when achieving tropical depression strength? I found this fascinating. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, very unusual indeed. I could imagine the NHC naming a system and calling it a tropical storm, only to have its upgrade delayed in post-analysis, but I can't think of an instance when that happened. Truly fascinating. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA passed
I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. The article is well-sourced, neutral, several free images are used, and it is broad in covering the topic. I would recommend adding another image or moving one of the other two images up into the infobox. Also, the last section should either be expanded on or merged into the "Long term impact" section.
Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Move protection
Guys, I don't care what name we use, but let's stop move-warring. Hash out a name here, and then I'll lift the protection. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't there an agreement within the project that if a name is used only once, that it doesn't need to have the year included in the title? It turns out this was not a retired name after all, after slight digging at Hink's suggestion within the past few weeks, so the move was not mandatory for that reason. I didn't rename it when I was upgrading the article to B and GA class because I did not understand the naming convention within the project at that time (I think I do now.) I don't see a compelling reason for this to be renamed from its current title unless another tropical cyclone is named Gracie. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, even though it may not have been retired, there was no other hurricane named Gracie, and there is even the possibility it was retired. Given that, I am perfectly content with keeping it at this title. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether this storm was retired or not is irrelevant here. Gracie was used just once, and isn't used on any list worldwide. There is no possible confusion with the term "Hurricane Gracie" now, or in the future. Retirement makes sense as a criterion if there had been multiple Gracies. "The storm gets main article iff it was retired" is taking a "general rule" too far. The name "Nargis" will never be retired, but it will never be reused, the same as all North and SW Indian storms. If that rule was strict, it would have to be at Cyclone Nargis (2008).--CycloneAlley (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually don't care which name we use; I was just trying to stay consistant with our guidelines. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice, we don't even have a guideline page (just an outdated section on the WPTC main page), which means edit warring is unacceptable. There is even precedence to not add the year identifier, with Hurricane Ginny, but also as CycloneAlley mentioned all of the Indian storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly did not realise that I had begun to edit war until it did get slightly out of hand. I meant no harm by doing it, but rather I was trying to help. On a more relevant note, I believe you were the one who added the year to the title when it became clear it wasn't retired, which led me to believe that was the correct name. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's just that it would've been more helpful to talk about it without seeing the article moved X times in one day. Also, no, Tito was the original person who moved it, but that's not important. Is anyone not OK with the name staying where it is? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
- I tried discussing it with CycloneAlley, but he left personal-attack type comments on my talk page. I'm fine with the current name. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's just that it would've been more helpful to talk about it without seeing the article moved X times in one day. Also, no, Tito was the original person who moved it, but that's not important. Is anyone not OK with the name staying where it is? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
- I certainly did not realise that I had begun to edit war until it did get slightly out of hand. I meant no harm by doing it, but rather I was trying to help. On a more relevant note, I believe you were the one who added the year to the title when it became clear it wasn't retired, which led me to believe that was the correct name. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice, we don't even have a guideline page (just an outdated section on the WPTC main page), which means edit warring is unacceptable. There is even precedence to not add the year identifier, with Hurricane Ginny, but also as CycloneAlley mentioned all of the Indian storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually don't care which name we use; I was just trying to stay consistant with our guidelines. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether this storm was retired or not is irrelevant here. Gracie was used just once, and isn't used on any list worldwide. There is no possible confusion with the term "Hurricane Gracie" now, or in the future. Retirement makes sense as a criterion if there had been multiple Gracies. "The storm gets main article iff it was retired" is taking a "general rule" too far. The name "Nargis" will never be retired, but it will never be reused, the same as all North and SW Indian storms. If that rule was strict, it would have to be at Cyclone Nargis (2008).--CycloneAlley (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, even though it may not have been retired, there was no other hurricane named Gracie, and there is even the possibility it was retired. Given that, I am perfectly content with keeping it at this title. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
