Talk:Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Tropical Storm Alberto (2006) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Alberto is wet

I just drove through a heavy precipitation cell from an Alberto outer band in Miami and all I can say is it sucked. Great news for Central Florida I guess. (Sobesurfski 22:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, since they are in a significant drought, this should take care of that... CrazyC83 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class

I knocked it down to a stub, but it's only temporary. It's good as it is, but it's a current event, and is bound to be changed a lot. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also ranked it as Mid-important because of the reason above and that Alberto is bound to not become a hurricane. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's not going to be retired, then it can't be anything but Low. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, at least after it dies, it should be reduced to Low. This is not headed for the retirement home (unless something strange happens, i.e. stalls somewhere). CrazyC83 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable tropical cyclones

I have removed this from the "See Also" section again. List of notable tropical cyclones contains no information relevant to Alberto, and Alberto certainly is not currently a notable tropical cyclone. —Cuiviénen 02:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

For now, I've redirected it to the season page; if we're going to have current stuff on a non-major storm, we should handle it on one article. This article was about 90% a duplicate of what we have in the season article, and thus had no justification for its existence. If things get bad, or later, or whatever, maybe we can try again, but for now, let's concentrate in the season article. --Golbez 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should think about the individual storm articles later on in the season (apart from storms which are clearly notable of course). Pobbie Rarr 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep this the way it is until it fizzles out and decide then. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, seeing how much information is here, I'm fine with it staying. Earlier in its life, when it appeared to be a nothing, then a redirect was fine, but a landfall is going to occur soon, and there's bound to be a lot of info on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The controversial decisions, merges and judgement calls are problematic IMO. It was never a stub to begin with, so I see no harm in creating instant articles. (When there are no articles, I will have sandbox articles on my user page) CrazyC83 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
this is an active storm at the moment, as such, having a seperate article where all changes can be added quickly without clutering up the mai article is a good idea. I would say, let it develop here, and after the storms is gone, compact it and see what needs to be in the main article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty good as a current storm. However, I don't think we should assess storms as they're active. As for creating instant articles, I think it should only be for land-threatening storms. For Alberto, we knew it was going to hit somewhere, and as a depression, it already caused some impact. Thus, there is a point in updating and developing it. For fish storms, there's no point in having to update it every advisory if the info will affect no one. This is just my opinion, and you can ignore it if you want ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Fish storms going nowhere (i.e. 2005's Lee) have a good case, but immediate fish storms with long-term land potential (i.e. 2003's Isabel a week out) creates a grey area. Back when what is now Alberto was a depression, I was working on the shell of the article in my user page. CrazyC83 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea, starting as a depression in a sandbox article is fine, as you can get started right away (though be sure not to publish it until TS status). For an Isabel type storm, I'm not sure if they should get articles if a week out they have long-term land potential. Look at Irene. That was forecasted to get close to land, but never did. Only once preparations are under way should a long-term fish storm be able to get an article. For example, if there's a fish storm that is forecasted to hit land in 4 days, and hurricane evacuations have begun, an article as warrented. If it did hit, there'd be info about the impact. If it didn't, then the article could be a "preparations for nothing" article like Felix or Edouard. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

Does anyone mind checking if there's something horribly wrong with Hurricane Alberto means evacuation for Southern Florida residents at Wikinews? I found that article, it was in deplorable shape, and tried to fix it a little bit. Could I get a second read on it from someone else? Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little, including moving it to a headline that actually has some semblance of reality in it. --Golbez 04:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper front page

I don't know how great of a fairuse claim it is, since it's not really talking about The Tampa Tribune, but I went ahead and added it anyway. Thoughts would be appreciated. (When I shrunk the front page, the newsprint looks as if it is blotched in certain spots, but the headlines read well). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper front page image is actually bulky, large, and really doesn't add a whole lot to the article. Overall, newspaper front pages really don't add much to most articles. They might be notable for really major events, like if a category 5 hurricane hits a major town, or for events on the scale of 9/11, but for this, I don't think we've reached that level of notability, yet. Plus, the whole thing is definitely copyrighted, and I'm not sure fair use would apply in this case, though IANAL. Dr. Cash 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it used before (although I know just because there's use doesn't mean it's right). I think it could have a place if the article got fleshed out more, but I'm not really a big fan of small tropical storms getting their own articles anyway. But who am I to fight against like 20 like-minded hurricane editors? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption for 5 day-track

I'm wondering why the caption for the 5 day track has the date when the actual image has the date. The problem with the date on the caption is that it has to be updated when ever the image is updates, something that happens every 6 hours.Reub2000 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just there so people know it is the most up-to-date. Someone else or maybe the person who added it might know better. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto dead

Alberto has lost tropical characteristics. However, do we still provide information using {{HurricaneActive}} or is that done? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the information is available, I'd continue with collecting information. Plus there is a chance it could reform into a tropical or subtropical storm over the Gulf Stream... CrazyC83 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's what I've done (left the templates there). Nilfanion put the extratropical transition date in the infobox. Does that go in the infobox thing on the season article page too? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I probably jumped the gun with putting the extratropical date in now - but that's what should be there in the end. Compare against Arlene's article and Arlene's section in the list to see how the infoboxes should read ideally. The extratropical transition date is the one we use (even if the storm is significant when extratropical.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Updated track information to present in the storm history page. I used the 7-day unified analysis loop to track the low, but this link won't be fresh/useful in a few more days. Thegreatdr 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct or Indirect?

http://www.wral.com/apncnews/9371346/detail.html A kid outside of Raleigh died in a flood due to Alberto. This storm was earlier than usual for a big tropical storm, we got heavy rain for two days in Charlotte from it. BobbyAFC

Since it's the remnants, and not winds, I'd say it is indirect, but I'll add it to the article. Titoxd(?!?) 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be direct had the water suddenly came in and swept him away, but since he ran in there, it is indirect. (Direct deaths can come out of the remnants) If the NHC rules otherwise at the monthly report or in the TCR, it can be changed. CrazyC83 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Rainfall Graphic Added

The graphic was constructed around midnight last night. I do have additional rainfall observations for Cuba, but have no way of sourcing it. One of our guys has relatives in Cuba, and received the information from them, which probably originated with their weather service.

[edit] Impact Reorganization/Todo

The impact section should be in chronological order, and, if possible, be separated by area. Caribbean could be the first area, which should include the rainfall totals in prose, not table form. Florida would be the next sub-section, then Georgia/Carolinas. The storm history needs a copyedit, and sources if possible. The preparations section should be expanded to include some of the watches/warnings stuff. This is all needed for the article to be higher than stub class. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the storm is still active - the most recent CHC advisory gives some details on the storms (its reintensified up to 45kt winds) and Canadian preparations. This storm will have some (limited) Canadian impact too.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Good find. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Research / Strongest Gusts

I've heard from meterologists here in Nova Scotia that this storm was going to be heavily researched, as it was extremely strong when it made landfall in Nova Scotia (Atlantic Canada) as a Tropical Despression. The Canadian Weather Office recorded winds gusts as high as 112 kph at Baccaro Point weather station (82kph sustained winds). The storm system also had a recorded lower pressue here (970mbar). This is very odd considering the water in our area is much colder. I'll add more information once I come across it. --Christian.elliott 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Alberto made only one landfall while tropical. There is no way it could've made landfall in Canada as a tropical depression. 970hPa was an extratropical reading. NSLE 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It redeveloped as a mid-latitude oceanic storm similar to a nor'easter, is what NSLE means to say. It ceased having tropical characteristics once it became a frontal wave in the Carolinas, although its mid-level temperatures were still warm as it passed by Sable Island. I have two upper air soundings from Tallahassee, FL and Sable Island, NS for comparison if you'd like to see the difference between a tropical cyclone and a mid-latitude cyclone. Thegreatdr 18:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class?

Shouldn't this be a B-class? It follows all the guidelines for one. Or is it still a start because it's recent, or becasue there's like one [citation needed] in it? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too disorganized, has no damage totals, and has little in the impact section. No it shouldn't. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better than start-class...the impact section is pretty long for a minor landfalling tropical storm. bob rulz 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd call call it between a start-class and a B-class article, its sort-of organized and has some info. but seems to be lacking what good articles or featured articles have. Alastor Moody (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There are still some unrefed places, and the impact is still a bit disorganized. It's still start, though is close to B. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCR

Alberto's TCR is out now: [1] It only mentions one indirect death. bob rulz 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

The article needs updating with NCDC info. Also, parts could use rewriting, due to it being written while the storm was active. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy that. Titoxd(?!?) 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The TCR was also updated about a month ago. Probably about damages? Good kitty 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More images

If anyone is interested, there's more images from the Tallahassee NWS report and some North Carolina flooding images from the Raleigh NWS report. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They do not explicitly say who the images were taken by, so we have to be very careful. – Chacor 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I emailed them to see if they, as well as other images from the Raleigh NWS, are public domain. I also asked them about the NWS disclaimer, located here. It says that "all information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public". I asked them if that applies to images. If it does, that could be one of the greatest things to happen to the project, in terms of images. If not, well, I got my hopes up for nothing. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the NC ones are usable. The photo gallery says "those wishing to use photos on this website have permission to do so. However, please credit the individuals noted on the photo specific credits." Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change the one I put in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

  1. Factually Accurate: Pass
  2. Broad in Coverage: Pass
  3. Images: Pass
  4. Neutral: Pass
  5. Stability: Pass
  6. Well written: Pass

Good work everyone who did the work on this article.Mitchazenia 10:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)