Talk:Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) article.
Article policies
Good article Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) 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.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Something weird with infobox

So, why doesn't SS show up in {{infobox hurricane current}}? I can't figure out why... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because subtropical cyclones aren't included in it? No idea, otherwise. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They should... I mean, the code for {{infobox hurricane small}} includes them, and they shared significant parts of the ParserFunction guts... sigh... I'll try to have a look at it. :S Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That entire portion of the code is FUBAR'd. I have to go, so I can't fix it right now, but I'll try to do that soon. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true for any current template, look on talk:infobox hurricane current - the Cat 2 isn't showing. Overall my opinion on that is "Yuck". Oh and why are there two boxes in the article at present... /me reminds self to redo the damn templates.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Subtropical Storm Info

"Andrea is the first subtropical cyclone to develop in May since a storm in 1997" The low pressure system in question developed in may, but didn't gain any tropical characteristics till June 1st when it became a subtropical depression, so can it really be said that the unnamed subtropical storm formed in May?Enigmar 01:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I changed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, this is among the best current event articles I have seen in recent months. I have put the article under GA nomination. The grammar, detail, and prose is excellent. I would attempt an FA nomination in the future. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You think? Cool :) Regarding a hypothetical FAC nomination, I think that should wait a while, at least until after the TCR. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well done once again, Hink. - SpLoT // 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] huh?

What do you mean "it stopped issuing advisories"? I checked the NHC website, and it still has a "subtropical depression Andrea". It also says that it is expected to move northeastwards by Saturday, and even within 48 hours, it lists it as only 40% chance of dissipation. Therefore, even if the NHC stopped issuing advisories, it is still on the NHC page as still active, and the Andrea box has not yet dissapeared, and the boxes for probablities are still there, I'm thinking that the NHC is still listing it as active, at last check. If it's still active, should the article mention this? What do you think? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not really active, though, as the most recent advisory says "This is the last advisory issued by the NHC on this system." The NHC does not list it as active. They only have Andrea on the front page because the previous advisory was less than 24 hours ago. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I'm Late

Lol. A few things about Andrea, one is that the surf from Andrea did cause a death in Volusia County (a surfer drowned), Florida about 2 days ago. Mild erosion along Florida's east coast is another fact maybe should gain mention in the real article. Also, I agree with Hinker...this is an above avg article, esp for a current event. Props to whoever wrote it. Oh yeah, and another thing to add to this disorganized thought. Wildfires in south Georgia, the wind from Andrea has pushed all that smoke <COUGH> into Central Florida; coupled with the sea breezes on either side of us, the smoke is staying here <COUGH> and it is difficult to breathe. ORLRDVXL 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Dissipation

Andrea hasn't offically disspated and therefore shouldn't have a dissipation date entered yet. Although it has been downgraded it hasn't lost attention from the NHC and they are still issing advisories

Jordantessler 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Jordantessler

The National Hurricane Center has stopped issuing advisories, so for our purposes the date when that occurred is the dissipation date. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
At this point though, with the STDS, I think this page is still current, and I think that it should be taken off of GAC as it might just regenerate. If it regenerates, then this is considered part of the storm's lifespan and the date would change. CrazyC83 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change?

I think that the words "subtropical storm" should be changed to subtropical depression. Andrea is now called a depression and has been for the past 18 hrs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordantessler (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It stays storm not depression. That was its highest classification. ORLRDVXL 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we change every single article regarding tropical storms to "Depression"

DEPRESSION KATRINA DEPRESSION ANDREW DEPRESSION WILMA

lol it makes it sound as if they're upset.

[edit] Making a comeback... naming issue?

The remnants of Andrea are making a comeback. Convection is also developing near the centre. If the NHC re-starts advisories on Andrea as a tropical depression, and it never gets beyond that, what would be the right name for the article? To say "Subtropical storm" then might imply it never was tropical... – Chacor 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great question. I'll suppose we cross that bridge when we get there, though I would rather keep it at its current title. Saying Tropical Storm might imply that it had winds of 40 mph and was tropical, though that might not be the case if it becomes a tropical depression and never gets beyond that. Clarifying in the lead would suffice, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Where is it now? Reason I ask is that I'm in Tallahassee, FL (the part of the Gulf where the panhandle meets the peninsula part of florida), and we haven't had so much as a breeze or a drop of rain in over a week. What was the track of the storm and where is it now? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it should retain the name connected to its highest wind speed. If it becomes a tropical cyclone with winds of 45 knots or greater, wonderful. If not, we might as well keep the name the same. Thegreatdr 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be an unprecedented complication; I'd personally name it Tropical Storm Andrea (2007) (currently a redirect) as it covers both sides even though it wasn't actually a tropical storm at any point. However, what the NHC decides to officially list it as is what it will be named. CrazyC83 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
True enough. I can tell you this much, it will make the track database because it had gale force winds (45 knots), subtropical or tropical. If for whatever reason advisories are reissued, and it doesn't become a tropical storm again, they would likely call it a subtropical storm for the name header of the TCR. That's an educated guess, mind you, not inside info. Thegreatdr 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, a tropical depression alone isn't enough to be given a name. If the headache scenario entails, we can still sit safely in the knowledge that it was only ever called Andrea because of its status when it was subtropical only. Therefore, I would suggest keeping the name Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) whilst devoting a section to the tropical regeneration. Obviously if Andrea regenerates into a tropical storm, we won't have to worry about this. Pobbie Rarr 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The local news outlets in ORL have been saying in their broadcasts this evening that there is no chance for [what was] Andrea to make a comeback. I wk for a radiostation and our weather guys who are all certified meteorologists have said as well, that it is no longer possible. Anyone care to contest this...DJSEDISTICAL 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did it actually make a comeback? Juliancolton 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. It got close though. ---CWY2190TC 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

This article is great, however I must fail it due to the fact that Andrea may be making a comeback, and having GA article about a cyclone in progress would violate the stability criteria. See [1] and [2] for more info. Wait a few more days and then renominate it, just to ensure that Andrea does not re-emerge. Zeus1234 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global TC drought record in doubt

There is some talk within the TC community (all the sudden) regarding whether the record was truly set. There was a subtropical cyclone in the Mozambique Channel on April 11-12, which makes the stormless period only 27 days. =( Perhaps this should be removed from the article for this reason, as well as reference #2 coming from a blog, which I thought was a no-no. Thegreatdr 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct on both points. However, the subtropical cyclone (which reached 45 kt max sustained winds 10-min, iirc) was not named. If the record is indeed based on *naming* of systems then technically it still stands. – Chacor 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subtropical?

Hey there. I had never heard of the name "subtropical" for a general N. Atlantic storm name prefix before. I only thought that named storms could be preceeded by Tropical storm or Hurricane, but not Subtropical. Doesn't subtropical imply that it's really not a tropical storm or hurricane, but just a rotating system? I'm just a little confused here, and I would appreciate if someone could explain why it is named this way, and why a subtropical storm can still get "named." Is this a new thing, or has "subtropical storm" always been a naming option? └Jared┘┌t┐  16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See Subtropical cyclone#History of term. Under current NHC rules a subtropical cyclone can be named - as was the case for Subtropical Storm Nicole (2004) (TCR). "Subtropical cyclone" is a reasonably well defined term, don't mix it up with extratropical cyclone; which is what you appear to be thinking of.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] current event- links to florida wildfires

This may continue to be a current event due to its driving force on the Florida wildfires which are devastating the state. Just thought you guys may want to know. I added some info on the fires under the impact section of florida. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildfire/Andrea

They have reported in the Orlando Sentinel in the recent days that this is among the largest wildfire one record in both Florida and Georgia. It has spread faster than any wildfire since records have ben kept. Most of the quick spread has been attributed to the strong southernly winds of what was/is Andrea and its remenants. I know that there is info about the wildfire in the article; but as a resident of Florida, there is not enough emphasis on how big an issue it is. The article should stress more about the wildfire and its significance with the storm. Nice to see someone picked up on the fact that it killed a man too. DJSEDISTICAL 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, links to more newspaper articles about this would be nice. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing man, give me a few min... DJSEDISTICAL 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay here is the link http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-fire1207may12,0,6545013.story IT MENTIONS ANDREA'S IMPACT STESSES THE SERIOUS IMPACT OF THE FIRE. Sorry for the capsDJSEDISTICAL 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That should be more on the article on the wildfires. The smoke spreading is more of an indirect effect from Andrea, as opposed to the high surf which is a direct effect. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The information is definitely out there. I heard it on ....dateline? or 60 minutes, one of the two. Plus, every regional paper has information on it⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya but hink i wasnt talking bout the smoke...I meant the fire has spread significantly and that is a direct effect from the storm. I am not arguing with you esp. but just saying. I mean, this is a major event and Andrea had/has major role to play in itDJSEDISTICAL 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Andrea caused north to northeast winds near the fires in the Okeefenokee swamp, and the remainder of Florida. Its extratropical phase may have spread them, but winds across Florida and Georgia seriously lightened up once it became a subtropical storm. Thegreatdr 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude are you kidding... the SOUTHELY WINDS from Andrea, and the remenants of expanded that fire by 86,000 acres in one day. If the winds were blowing to the north then South Carolina and the city of Savannah would be choking right now, not Orlando, Miami, and Tampa.DJSEDISTICAL 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is more appropriate on the wildfire page. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Northerly wind = wind coming from the north... ;) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I refuse to argue with Hink and fine... northerly wind. I retreatDJSEDISTICAL 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quibbling concerning intensity of Andrea

Some sharp individual stated Andrea's peak intensity as a subtropical storm was 45 knots when the article was first created, which was correct at the time. Unfortunately, this information did not make the first advisory since it was on a weakening trend at that time, though it was mentioned on the first conference call. This may be a moot point, since it had stronger winds in its previous stage as an extratropical cyclone. I believe OPC had hurricane force wind warnings for the extratropical cyclone. What is our procedure (is there one?) concerning cyclones that were once extratropical. Do we go with their lifetime maximum sustained winds and minimum central pressure, or only maximum sustained winds and minimum pressure while a subtropical/tropical cyclone? Just curious, since I'm not sure. Thegreatdr 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the strongest winds as a tropical or subtropical cyclone. For those that were stronger as extratropical, it is, or at least should be mentioned in the storm history. Additionally, I was the one who accidentally put 45 knots in there, though that's interesting it would have been correct. We shouldn't have too long to wait for confirmation, probably July 1 for the monthly summary. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Chacor just discovered the 45 knot factlet in the monthly summary and re-increased its intensity. Thegreatdr 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of the article

It looks like I'll be performing the GA review for this article. The problem I see is with the wikilinks. We have some places/dates wikilinked multiple times, which has become distracting per the manual of style. Restrict the wikilinks to their first use within the article, and I'll pass it. This issue has come up in a number of reviews for articles I've had up for GA, so I understand the temptation. We also have a problem with the last line of the lead not appearing to show up anywhere else within the article. Otherwise, it is complete, well-written, and fits the remainder of the GA criteria. Thegreatdr 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem arises because of that; dates need to be wikilinked, as they are different depending on the user preferences. Other ones, like trough, I wikilinked more than once because they were called two different things even though they linked to the same place. The same goes with linking to tropical cyclone, and specifically tropical cyclone#structure. I changed some others and added a bit more info. Hope all is good! Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't see how that applies to locations like Daytona Beach and entities like the National Hurricane Center, but no matter. Made the change myself to include the last line of the lead inside the article. Wikilink issues do not have to be resolved for GA, according to the GA page. Pass. Congratulations! Thegreatdr 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NHC TWO

It says that Andrea drowned 5 ppl while extratropical. Should we add that? icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Thegreatdr 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. They were related to Andrea, albeit as the precursor extratropical system that became Andrea. CrazyC83 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The change has been made. Thegreatdr 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is it pronounced on-DRAY-uh or ANN-dree-uh? I can't remember. . . . 10:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Without any research, I think I remember it being the former, but again, don't quote me on it. Jared (t)  12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is the second option ANN-dree-uh but check with the nhc Jason Rees 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track map intensity

In the track map, , how come for 18 hours, the track color goes into hurricane color, light yellow, although the maximum intensity is 60 mph? Juliancolton (Talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It reached hurricane strength after becoming extra-tropical. ---CWY2190TC 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks. Juliancolton (Talk) 20:27, 17 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 2007. 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) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)