Talk:Hurricane Ivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Ivan article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Ivan 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.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.

{{unsigned}}

To-do list for Hurricane Ivan: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • 3 paragraph intro
  • More detailed preparations
    • Preparations in chronological order
  • Smaller death table for impact
  • More info in impact section
    • Impact in chronological order
    • More in Jamaica
    • More in Cayman Islands
    • More in Cuba
    • More in Rest of Caribbean
    • More in Alabama
    • More in Rest of the United States
  • More Aftermath
  • Records section
  • Add sources for the entire article
  • Complete metrification
Priority 2  
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and read this. As a courtesy to other users, editors may use to help mark any unsigned comments.
Archives: 01.

Contents

[edit] Landfall

I haven't done much editing to wikipedia, so I'll leave this to others, but Hurricane Ivan did not make landfall in Orange Beach, Alabama, it hit Gulf Shores, Alabama. This is a quote from the NHC Tropical Cyclone Report linked at the end of the article: "Ivan weakened only slowly and made landfall as a 105 kt hurricane (category 3 on the SSHS; see Figure 2c and Figure 3b.) at approximately 0650 UTC 16 September, just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama" It says west of Gulf Shores. Orange Beach is east of Gulf Shores, between Gulf Shores and Pensacola, Florida. Gulf Shores extends west to the bay.


[edit] Regarding the Eye

So, wait. Ivan lost his southern eyewall? Does that mean he lost his tropical characteristics? What does that mean? You're tellin me Ivan was America's strongest coldfront at landfall? Cyclone1 18:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivan didn't 'lose' anything, except a little intensity. The thing about the eyewall means that there was just a big freakin' hole in the southern half of the eyewall. Ivan was still a warm-core hurricane at landfall. You don't have to have an eye to be a tropical cyclone. Look at 98% of all the tropical storms that never reached hurricane intensity. They didn't have an eye, but they were very tropical. The article tropical cyclone will tell you more. Also see extratropical storm -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 05:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death table

Does that really need to be that extravagent? All that should be listed is by country (or states for the US). More detail can go in subsections (like having a Leeward Islands section and mentioning that 1 died in Barbados and 1 in Tobago), but having a table that big really clutters things. Hurricanehink 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is way too much information. — jdorje (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery

Info on this has to be included if this article is going to be the FA that it should be. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005AHS consequences

Katrina should be mentioned in the discussion of 4th highest US damages; and presumably other 2005 storms should be to. I wonder if it would be better to not use the "Ivan was the 3rd most costly US hurricane (now 4th)" format and switch it to give the emphasis to the at-the-present status (and have the at-the-time in brackets)?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to find a way to remove parentheses completely. I'm giving the article a copyedit, so I'll try to address that as well. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I created a records/naming section - Irene style to try and relieve some of the stress on the Storm History. The big change which is needed here I think is to change the Impact to a by-US State breakdown and move the impact info out of the history, which will bring that section down to a sensible length.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that section is needed at all; the hydrological records section should be removed completely, IMO, and the rest can be blended in quite easily in the impact. That said, the damages should be moved from history to impact, as you say. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah and theres the ACE - that should go completely; I'm not sure about it - get the impact section sorted then remerge it back. I'm looking at this with an eye to Wilma too, that storm has exactly the same layout problems only moreso. I think a lot of the storm history should be moved - a lot of "city X suffered TS winds" is impact. There is some aftermath info too, though it is hard to see currently, the Venezuelan crop things for a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on splitting the article up into many sections - like one for each US state; once that is done we can remerge the minor ones and know we have a good format.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, that makes the TOC very long, and it also gives the impression that the article is US-centric (which it's not). I'd say it's better if they're merged back into "United States" again. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a temporary thing - split it up then remerge; we know the right bits are in the right place. Having said that I'm not sure if the US info justifies a by state split — is that because the US didn't get that big an impact or is it indicative of a lack of information (Alabama should have more info shouldn't it?)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, remerge the US impact sections but to me it looks like there is a lack of information from the non-Florida states, if significant information can be found for other states I would favor a split - and a lack of info is a concern. The preparations section is highly US-centric at the moment; thats easily fixed (the TCR). Aftermath is stubby at the moment, but again more work will fix it.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Having them split would emphasize what is needed. In addition, it would allow for better organization. Alabama should be the biggest section, but it currently isn't. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just drastically cut down the length of the storm history, 5 paragraphs seems reasonable. It needs copyediting however, I was a bit repetitive (Cat 5 then Cat 4 then Cat 5 then Cat 4....).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved the intensity record back into the storms history, commented out the wave record for now, retirement into aftermath and removed the ACE references as trivia. Just the impact/aftermath to sort out now?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yay! The article doesn't look horrible and disorganized now. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we wait for Eric to come back, he said he had some significant info for this article? It's gone on the back burner anyway...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
He said he won't be back until after June. If anyone wants to give it a rewrite or something, you can go ahead, and Eric can just add his info when he comes back. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my hard drive crashed shortly before I left so that information is now gone and it may be awhile before I could get it off. I could rewrite it. It was a section on the recovery. Wait a minute...Hink, didn't I post it on you talk page a while back, asking you to review it? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was on my talk, but I don't remember exactly which archive it went into, and I have to run, so I can't really look for it right now. Good to see you back, though. Titoxd(?!?) 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Good thing I never archive my talk page by moving it... [1] Titoxd(?!?) 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Should the deaths from Canada be included? The storm, which was definetly part of Ivan (the old mid-level circulation), caused 2 direct deaths and 4 indirect deaths. Of course, I think that the system that went to Canada was the original Ivan, and the thing in the Gulf should have been Matthew (or Nicole, depends on if they classified the tropical storm behind Lisa). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is debatable. My opinion is the same as yours that the Gulf regenesis should have been TD14/Matthew and that "Ivan" went northeast (it is also a natural track, not a loop-de-loop), but it is not really classified as such by the NHC and it would create essentially a "branch" in the article. Since it is officially classified as a non-tropical remnant low, it would naturally be considered an extension of this article - but that southern loop with the detached surface remnants throws a curve. IMO, the damage and deaths there should indeed be included, but others will disagree. CrazyC83 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The hurricane database would be a bit different if we treated a new surface cyclogenesis based on the old-mid level low as the same name. The Allison (1989) track would move off the east coast, never to return. Karl (1998) would be the latter part of Hermine's track. Dennis (1999) track would end, and what struck North Carolina a week later would have been Emily. And so on. Thegreatdr 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category 5 record?

Was Ivan the most southerly Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic (13.7 degrees north)? I can't think of any other Cat. 5s which occured that far south. If so, I think it deserves a mention in the article. Pobbie Rarr 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. Feel free to improve the Records section. :) Pobbie Rarr 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New information

"Following the storm, federal aid poured into the hardest hit areas. In the United States, over $1 billion was spent on relief and recovery alone. Thousands of fallen trees had to be removed. The wreckage was stacked in piles across the devestated areas in Florida and Alabama, some as much as two stories high. Church mission groups, Habitat For Humanity and other non-profit relief organizations lined up to do whatever they could to aid in the rebuilding process. Civil engineers carefully laid out plans for reconstructing the terribly eroded beaches. They pumped sand from the sea bed onto the shore and gradually built the beach back up.

The US also sent financial aid to the Caribbean nations affected by Ivan. Nations throughout the region worked to support one another in the recovery efforts. On Grenada, for example, international relief crews and volunteers flew in to assist in the clearing of debris and the distribution of supplies. In the Cayman Islands, a relief fund was set up to collect donations and organize assistance for stricken families. On Barbados, the government initiated a housing recovery project in which three federal agencies worked to rebuild homes that were damaged or destroyed by the storm. These efforts sped up the rebuilding process that was only just finishing up at the start of 2006."

I wrote this months ago hoping to provide information on the recovery efforts. I had some trouble tracking down the websites I used but I was able to come up with most of it. A couple news sites didn't support the pages anymore so I can't get the specific article where the Grenada info came from. I also came up empty on the Habitat for Humanity stuff. Maybe it's on their website and I just didn't see it, but I know it's out there. If people on the hurricane project could help me track those other sources down, I'd be extremely grateful. I think this info would greatly improve the article. The stuff I have sources for can be added right away, but I want to find that other stuff, I know it's out there. I'd love to hear feedback. The sources I found are: [2], [3], [4], fact about the trees is in the NHC report (section C, paragraph 2). -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 06:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Feel free to add it in, and for the sentences without sources, you can blank them out, using <!-- and -->. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWS reports

These should be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically they are, since those reports are written for inclusion into the TPC report. Thegreatdr 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tornado outbreak

I was doing some research, and found that around 117 tornados were associated with the landfall of Ivan. How about an article Tornado Outbreak of Hurricane Ivan? Juliancolton 14:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment coming on February 8

...if we collectively cannot fill out the 11 fact tags scattered throughout the page. Also, the reference section is in at least 3 mixed formats, which is problematic. The text needs work also; I fixed several grammar and spelling problems on the page when trying to fill out the reference section. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've completely fixed the format problem in the reference section, but two fact tags remain. There are also some tense problems in some sections of the article, which I've been slowly weeding out. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

Since there have been no further comments either on the tropical cyclone or Hurricane Ivan talk pages, I'll take that as agreement. I'm listing the article for reassessment. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was kept as a GA, but consider using peer review for more feedback on the article. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2005. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, 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) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)