Talk:Tropical Storm Beryl (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Beryl (2006) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Beryl (2006) 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.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Todo

Wait until more info comes out, I guess. I removed the class and importance because we have too little info, and we don't know what's going to happen. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of uncertainties with this one. It's kinda like a mini-Ophelia at this point... CrazyC83 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put Start-class back as the article is certainly nothing but that (and that's our policy for active systems, isn't it; Start-class until it dissipates?) However, it could conceivably (unliekly, I know) blow up and hit North Carolina as a Cat 5, so obviously importance is unknown. —Cuiviénen 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we've been doing stub class while the storm is active, mainly due to the information we don't have yet from later in its storm history. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

B-class? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm sure there's more info out there, and some sections need to be redone. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In particular, the Canadian info is poor.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Princess

I have removed the blurb about the Crown Princess, as the reports I have found have no mention of Beryl and some mention it was calm at the time of the incident. [1][2] --Ajm81 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But there's a source for it. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That source has no mention of high waves or Beryl. If you have a ref that mentions those, restore it. (Mine that said it was calm has disappeared, hmm). --Ajm81 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Found some saying there were no badwaves: [3][4][5]:--Ajm81 16:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NJ Surfing pictures

Just to let you know, I went down to the beach and took a few pictures of the surf caused by Beryl.

--Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O-TOWN'S AT

My last breath on Beryl is that this storm fired up very quickly and got intense (for a TS) and held that intensity all the way up to MA. It also came from a tropical wave that dropped two different features. The storm puts the season "ahead of schedule" by almost 2 weeks so that means I am happy. Finally, this was the storm that i made my wiki debut on so i am happy and i intend to edit hurricane articles for a while so i hope that the regulars on these pages can deal with me and my stubbornness because i fully intend to be a regular also. E-mail all you want (act32701@hotmail.com) or check out my page which is still under transformation. O-TOWN'S AT 17:53(EST)22 July 2006


[edit] How uncommon is this?

It seems to me (a non-expert by any measure) that the story here is that this is a tropical storm that originated from a west-to-east moving front over North America. Is my impression off, or is that very rare? When is the last time that happened? -Harmil 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaston and Hermine did that in August of 2004, I believe. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it happens more often than you think. Many a time have tropical features developed at the bottom or a west-east moving front. I could be wrong but i think Bonnie was one of those storms. generally as they develop they break off from the existing front. Now what is rare is the fact that not one but two tropical features spawned off of this one front. The latter of which obviously developed much faster and stronger... We know it as Beryl. ---AT
Very good point, but two tropical storms from the same front isn't as rare as you think. Both Gaston/Hermine in 2004 and Bertha/Cristobal in 2002 did it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
3 INSTANCES ISN'T RARE HINK? LOL :) --AT
Well, I only looked back 5 years. However, looking back further, you're right, it does seem to be a rare phenomena where two storms form from the same front. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHC

The NHC has ceased monitoring Beryl now, but the Canadian Hurricane Centre will continue to do so until it leaves the area of Canadian interest; there's some impact detail in their advisories...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area's affected

Although Breyl directly affected Massachettus and the Altantic Canada, Some links from weather.com (no longer existing), stated that Breyl affected more states which inlcuded the Mid-Atlantic states, and the New England states, examples of New York, Philadelphia, Maine, Virginia, Connecticut, and New Jersy, but I don't understand why no one put it in the hurricane infobox. But sorry to say, the links I read were temporary and no longer exists. Alastor Moody (talk) 06:33 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you still have the links? There is an internet archive which allows you to view past versions of a web page. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The west side was so badly sheared though that from all I can see, nothing got very far inland until it reached Atlantic Canada. The only land areas really affected in the US were the immediate southeast coast of Massachusetts and eastern Long Island - even less than what is shown there. Most of the storm remained over water and the indirect impacts were pretty much all over the Atlantic as well. CrazyC83 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I side with Crazy O-TOWN'S AT 17:42(EST) 22 July 2006

[edit] Injuries

Too bad I can't add this, but we have our first indirect injury from Beryl, me! I fell off my bike and hurt myself pretty bad, and I wouldn't have been riding home if it weren't for Beryl. So I thought I'd just let somebody know. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your are a stupid idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.1.146.100 (talk • contribs) .
Please, no personal attacks. -- RattleMan 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said that... íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCDC

Just so all know, I removed the NCDC link and the damage total, as it does not appear to be related to Beryl. Though the event report occurred on the same day that Beryl passed Massachusetts, it also says it didn't start until 1:30 pm, at which time Beryl had already become extratropical and long gone from the area. As seen in this satellite imagery, and also said in the event report, the thunderstorms occurred in western Massachusetts. Also, the NHC clearly said that there was no reports of damage from Beryl. Surely the NHC would mention either the 7 injuries, $215,000 in damage, or the multiple damaged cars if it was related to Beryl. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. I remember David Roth saying somewhere that the NHC gets their reports from local offices, which means that they'd be notified of anything. It's highly possible these aren't linked. – Chacor 00:18, 17 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)

[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 2006. 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) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)