Talk:North American blizzard of 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North American blizzard of 2006 article.
Article policies
North American blizzard of 2006 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: Error: invalid time
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Non-tropical storms, a project containing articles related to worldwide Non-tropical storm events. If you would like to participate and help, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Non-tropical storms.

Contents

[edit] Impact organization

Should the Impact section be organized by region ("Washington, D.C.", "New Jersey") or by category ("Utilities", "Transportation")? --AySz88^-^ 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how much we get from each region. Personally though, I would organize it by region - in line with other weather event pages. CrazyC83 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't this, along with all the other blizzard articles on Wikipedia, be renamed American Blizzard of 2006 (or whatever the year was)?. The current titles are rather US centric. BillyH 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that; probably "Northeast U.S. Blizzard of 2006". --AySz88^-^ 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to the current title (North American blizzard of 2006) so that the current "Blizzard of <year>" articles in Category:Blizzards can be moved to more descriptive titles and still be named in a series. -- AJR | Talk 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowfalls relevant in an encyclopedia?

If we had an extra article about every weather condition that caused some trouble in some part of the world in history it would soon become the main topic at wikipedia... Get-back-world-respect 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Record snowstorm in New York City...I'd say this is worthy of an article. bob rulz 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm pretty sure that record snowfall at Central Park isn't just any other weather condition. --AySz88^-^ 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, New York, Central Park, then it must be notable. Much more important than the umpteenth flooding in Bangladesh (Bangladeshi flood of 2004) that killed hundreds and displaced 30 million or the cold that kills the Pakistani victims of the Pakistan earthquake of 2005 who have no housing left. They have no Central Park either, so why care about them. They do not even have computers they would need to contribute to wikipedia. In the Russian winter 2005-2006 temperatures of -43°F/-42°C [1] killed more than a hundred there and more in neighbouring countries and forced evacuations. [2] But at least we have an article with the information that during the Blizzard_of_2005 North Kingstown hat 17.0 inches of snow, 1:02 PM January 23. Let's write about snow in some notable place, it definitely deserves more coverage than the 2005-06 Niger food crisis that puts some 10 million people at risk of starvation. They are only blacks, you know. Get-back-world-respect 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Pakistan earthquake is at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. 2005-06 Niger food crisis is significantly more-developed than this article, which is only hours old and is so far just basically a brainstorm of facts. I don't know much about Bangladesh situation, or about the Niger food crisis for that matter, but actually that's probably why fewer people edit those articles - because fewer people at Wikipedia know a great deal about them. I think it's reasonable to expect people who are more interested or knowledgable about something to edit the articles on those things. There is no racist or intentionally biased reason for working on one article over another - editors work on whatever they would like to edit. If you think your own time would be better spent on some other subject, go ahead, but please don't attack others or try to make others do the same. --AySz88^-^ 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I am just pointing out that wikipedians make fools of themselves covering every US weather event while turning a blind eye on major events that threaten the lifes of millions elsewhere. Get-back-world-respect 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and you are so not-foolish wasting our time reading your incoherent ramblings here. If you can't see how a 100-year snowstorm in one of the planet's four most significant world cities is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then sorry, can't help you. If it happened in Paris or Tokyo you'd have no problem including it because you are simply biased against all things American. Uris 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
If someone points out that wikipedia seems like major weather events nearly always happen in the United States he must for sure be anti-American. Instead of showing your paranoia you may think about why New York and Paris should be more noteworthy than Moscow or the whole country of Bangladesh with its 144 million inhabitants. Get-back-world-respect 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You say this "always happens", I say it has never happened in all years on record. If there was a record snowfall in Moscow or Bangladesh I would expect it to be covered on Wikipedia. Would you not? Maybe you're confused. If these events aren't covered in other countries, it is the fault of the Wikipedians who live in those countries. As for me, I'll worry about covering the things that happen here. It's hard for me to take a photograph of Moscow from this distance. Uris 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, the Bangladesh flood that had a much bigger effect on people's lifes than snow in Central Park has no article. Nor has this year's winter in Russia and neighbouring countries that killed hundreds. Information is available on the internet, but wikipedians do not seem to care. Get-back-world-respect 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Then go write the articles! What are you waiting for? Be bold and do it yourself. Uris 01:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think waking up some people pinpointing a general problem has a bigger effect than starting articles no one would care for. Get-back-world-respect 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone here is "waking up" as you put it. If anything, you come off as someone who would rather complain than do anything yourself. People tend to create articles about things that are close to them, not just Americans but all people. There just happen to be a lot of Americans on here because an American invented Wikipedia. Eventually the other countries will increase their own numbers on here. Uris 01:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia versions in other languages do not cover large amounts of weather events of the participants' home countries while neglecting major events in the rest of the world. National Geographic surveys show Americans are less interested in the rest of the world. [3] Would be nice if some thought about this. Get-back-world-respect 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That's easily explained. Other languages don't have nearly the amount of articles that English does. We're closing in on 1,000,000. A fairer comparison would be against the versions of those languages in a number of years when they are close to 1,000,000 articles as well. As for being less interested in the world, I'm not sure that's a problem. Personally, I think Americans need to worry more about American workers (i.e., ending free trade with countries where workers make $1/day like China) and less about helping foreign lands while hurting the people in our own neighborhoods. By the way, that article says "Young people in Canada and Great Britain fared almost as poorly as those in the U.S." so I don't see where we're all that different than anyone else in the English-speaking world. Uris 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
<--
This is getting more and more offtopic; perhaps it'd be better continued on user talk pages. Bottom line, though, is that the English Wikipedia is going to have a lot more U.S. editors and therefore naturally more U.S. coverage, which just means that other sections of the world need to be filled in by other editors. If you'd like to help, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --AySz88^-^ 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You can compare by proportions. The Spanish es:Categoría:Meteorología does not have a similar phenomenon of over-representation of Spanish speaking countries. And in general it is considered helpful to know things about other countries when making up one's mind about foreign relations. At US universities, too. Indeed, self-centrism seems to be a general phenomenon of English speaking countries. Does not make things better but worse for the English wikipedia. We are getting off topic though. Get-back-world-respect 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no such comparison by proportions to the English Meteorology category. Please cite your sources, as always. Or make a quantitative comparison yourself if you can. By the way, if you can improve English Wikipedia by giving coverage to events in remote countries of the world, then go for it! No one is standing in your way. Uris 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you agree that calling other countries "remote" shows a lack of respect and self-reflection? Look at Category:2005_meteorology and do not ask again why I think the English wikipedia is ridiculously US-centered. Get-back-world-respect 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not calling all other countries "remote", though I am calling Bangladesh "remote" from my location (New York City). You keep switching the category you are referring to. The Spanish equivalent of the one you are NOW talking about won't be as developed until there are 1,000,000 articles like on the English Wikipedia. When will this happen? When Spanish-speaking people start using Wikipedia as much as English-speaking people. By the way, how many articles have you started about these meteorological anomalies in other countries? I'm guessing 0. Uris 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I created 2006 European cold wave, do not agree that the Spanish wikipedia will be automatically more hispanocentred as it grows and wish you fun with the snow in "remote" NYC. Get-back-world-respect 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
See article European windstorm for some coverage of similar weather events outside the U.S.EikwaR 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical snowstorms like this one deserve to be on Wikipedia. Faz90 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a winter equivalent to at least a Category 2 or 3 hurricane, and those (making landfall) almost always have articles. As for the non-US events, the articles should be made except I know little about them outside of North America. CrazyC83 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I said to myself at 10:00 this morning...."Should I create the article?" Eight hours later, I typed it in the search, thinking the same thing. But.....you guys are good, man! :) Good work! Deckiller 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating it late last night, but the original forecast of 8-15 inches of snow was a borderline case for the densely populated area. With what transpired, the article was definitely justified. Having worked at many weather-related articles (mainly with hurricanes) before, we've been able to make this in line with all the other weather event articles. CrazyC83 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut?

  • What about the storm's impact on Connecticut? From what I see, it has hit pretty bad here. Unless there is not sufficient information, please add it. --G VOLTT 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't found any information specific to Connecticut, but it should be added - it would be the first subsection in the Impact section, as it is organized in alphabetical order. If the storm continues into Atlantic Canada tomorrow (it's possible), where that goes is up for debate. CrazyC83 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
According to my local news source (turnto10.com) they got around 17 inches in some areas. Then again, that report also states that Rhode Island only received 14 inches. Deckiller 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next to be affected: Atlantic Canada

Current forecasts there are for lesser amounts of snow (6-12 inches/15-30 cm) but with winds gusting up to 50 mph (80 km/h) in general, except up to 70 mph (110 km/h) on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. CrazyC83 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New York Bias- Pictures

In this article, I noticed that every picture is from New York City. Other cities should also have pictures, since this storm didn't only affect New York. Faz90 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agreed, except we need to find them. One per section if it gets developed enough. CrazyC83 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely think each region should have a pic. Just need everyone to submit pics from their respective regional sections. Uris 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official name

When I was watching the Weather Channel, I noticed they said and showed what the blizzard's official name was. But I could not write it down and didn't remember all of it. It was something like; "Southeastern New England Pre-Valentine Blizzard of 2006" (quite a mouthful!). Can anybody confirm this?Icelandic Hurricane 12:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep it as is, with the only possibly modification is changing 2006 to February 2006 (title becoming North American blizzard of February 2006) if necessary. CrazyC83 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If there really is an official name like that, it should be noted, but something like "Southeastern etc etc etc" is too long. Per WP:NC, it'd probably be a bad idea to use the official name as the article's title. "North American blizzard" is kinda misleading, though, since the blizzard didn't cover anywhere close to most of North America. --AySz88^-^ 05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Especially with another major blizzard on its way in the Plains...makes it even more misleading. Maybe just make the blizzard plural and let this article cover everything if all gets bad again... CrazyC83 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought that it should be renamed Nor'Easter of 2006. Of course, not everybody knows what a Nor'Easter is, so would that be a good idea? bob rulz 07:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Order

I swaped the NY City Hall and "Hurricane eye" picture. Why? Becuase most storm articles have a satalite image in their infoboxes. I just made them swap places.

[edit] Featured Article nomination?

I like this page so much that I feel that it should be nominated as a Featured Article. Anyone agree or disagree? CrazyC83 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say peer review first, and check if people injected unverified numbers into the snow depth table. --AySz88^-^ 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My advise

  • Remove or merge the trivia section, has articles should not have them per WP:NOT
  • Do some expansion of the effects
  • Article needs image formatting
  • The Lead needs to be trimmed per WP:LEAD

Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Try a Good Article nomination first. IMHO, this is not a Featured Article, but a good case could be made for a good article. -Runningonbrains 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title

I don't know who gave the name to this article but it is too vague. There is many blizzards in North America every year. This one has affected the EastCoast of the US and the Canadian Maritimes and should be named in this fashion. It did not affect the whole of the continent and many persons can claim that there was an equally devastating blizzard in the Prairies, in Ontario or in the Great Plaines in 2006 and it was not that one! Pierre cb 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

I think if you want to have this pass GA, then you probably want to shorten the intro, without losing any info. Plus, I think a storm history section should be made. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA Review

  • "As the system completed bombogenesis..." - note the red link. Given that, it is essential you quickly define your term.
  • "Three casulties occurred as a result of the snow" but it goes on to list fatalities. a casualty is just an injury, and, well, is it provable noone received a minor injury because of the snow? Is this even countable? Better to say "Three deaths"
  • "A total of 18 inches (46 cm) fell in the small Sandy Hook village." Given significantly higher amounts of snow elsewhere in Connecticut, and words like "small" and "village", it's hard to see why this is being mentioned.
  • "Kent and Sussex counties to the south mixed with rain for a while" Horrible phrasing!
  • "The Greater New York City Area received the brunt of the February Blizzard of 2006. All three of the airports in the New York City area (LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport) were closed during the record blizzard, for the first time since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Like the Blizzard of 1996, this winter storm does not meet the criteria to be called a blizzard, however." The discussion of whether it is or isn't a blizzard is odly placed - seems more appropriate to the opening, and if it isn't a blizzard, don't call it such one paragraph above.
  • "It could take two days for utility crews to fully restore service to as many as 300,000 customers." Don't use a conditional ("could") when you're reporting what actually happened. "It would take two days for utility crews to fully restore service to reportedly as many as 300,000 customers." would read a lot better.
  • "But in contrast, in Western Pennsylvania most got 1" or less of snow." - overloaded with qualifiers. At the least remove the word "but". Suggest a fuller re-write, e.g. "However, in Western Pennsylvania snowfall was generally less than 1" deep."
  • The Rhode Island section has a "Citation needed" tag. It is impossible to pass GA with this remaining uncited.
  • If you're doing state by state for the USA, it seems like inappropriate Americentricism to combine all of the Canadian provinces into one group. Either redo how the American states are divided up (e.g. by dividing into groups which saw similar effects from the storm) or otherwise remove the appearance of bias against Canada. I mean, you give snowfall in dozens of cities and towns in America, then hit Canada and just give a few quick notes. Possible suggestion: Cut all or most of the snowfall notes, replace with a snowfall map, and instead just keep the effect of the snow.
  • Observed accumulations: Not a mention of Canada again.
  • "However, it is common in the New York metropolitan area for the city's schools to remain open after snowstorms while the suburban schools close because in the city there is the option of riding underground subways whose movement is not appreciably affected by snowfall." Awkward phrasing.

In short, the prose is not sufficiently readable, the organisation of the state-by-state coverage poor, the dearth of Canadian information means it is not broad in its coverage, and it could really use some sort of snowfall map, even one made yourselves that just listed snowfall readings in the appropriate locations would be useful.

At the moment, this article cannot pass GA. However, the opening section is quite strong (if, again, missing Canada), and the facts (except Canadian) are well-documented and useful. I'm putting the article on hold, as it's not too far from GA. Please leave me a note in my talk page when ready for a re-review. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomination was withdrawn. More work will need to be done. CrazyC83 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the "bombogenesis" wording. One item can be scratched off the list. =) Thegreatdr 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

It would be interesting for someone to add something about Quebec, considering that the winter in Quebec is green when it's usually home to more snow than most (if not every) areas affected by this blizzard. --67.68.21.163 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The impact of this blizzard was personal for me

I married my husband on Sunday February 12th, 2006 in Easton, PA. The wedding stayed on schedule despite the storm. I lived in Somerset, NJ and had much reason to worry how to get on the interstate from my parents' house to the church. The 50-mile trip along the interstates was tough but we all got there. It's the most memorable day of my life and I got the best outdoor decorations -- lots of snow! And it was fun being seen by other passengers who smiled as they saw me in the car. Ruok9c 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)