Talk:Tropical Storm Delta (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Delta (2005) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Delta (2005) 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.
Merge talk
 The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Merge

Approve of article I support this article, it should stay seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman90 (talk • contribs)

Keep This storm article should not be merged --24.83.100.214 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; it did do a lot of damage to the Canaries where storms are not expected to... CrazyC83 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Very Big Keep Delta did better than Epsilon,who doesnt deserve an article. Epsilon made no landfall,Delta did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneCraze32 (talk • contribs)
Keep This deserves an article. Epsilon and Zeta deserves one if Vince gets one, but are they really noteworthy other than surviving four hundred predictions of weakening and the latter surviving a year change? I survived the year change and I didn't get an article.... Bsd987 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

It has too much of a current-event/work-in-progress feel. Bad grammar in the intro is really bad. And hey, it is a work-in-progress since the TCR hasn't been released. Jdorje 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It is hard to write top-quality articles without the TCR...plus we need to use the information we have (although it is fairly decent in this case) CrazyC83 05:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCR is out

same in puessure and wind although they said it may of become a hurricane just not info to prove it Jrc028

[edit] better pic

The TCR report of Delta has a very nice picture of Delta. Maybe we can use that one, too.Icelandic Hurricane 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the current one looks like a dying hurricane. 24.85.161.198 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The current one was taken while at its strongest. [1]. I just found a different one without a strong grid running all over it. Good kitty 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures from the Canary Islands

Someone on Storm2k.org's forums posted a website containing quite a few pictures of Delta and its effects on the Canary Islands as it was becoming extratropical, including some damage pictures. --Coredesat 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain's TCR

The Spanish equivalent of a TCR, available here, says that the peak gust recorded at Izaña was 248 km/h, which is a whopping 154 mph, and that the 10-minute sustained winds recorded there were 50.4 km/s, or 11.2 mph, making delta more than a Tropical Storm. Anyone else considers this peculiar? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No not really, I have a feeling the explanation is the obvious one - is the weather station at Izaña located at the observatory? If so it is 2400m above sea level; enough said.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt Delta would be a Category 4 hurricane.HurricaneCraze32 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo2

I've upped it to a B; the storm history follows the NHC data now, and the impact refs are all properly chased up. The impact section should probably be expanded, it reads too much like a series of bullet points at the moment (the Tenerife New's archive has enough info). The records section is a bit stubby, perhaps merge it into the impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage amount

The damage amount in the article should be changed to $140 million+, and here are the reasons why.

1.) The source staes there was At least 108 million Euros in civil and agracultural damage. From what it said in the article 12 million Euros in damages to the infrastructure, which was seperate from the other damage. This comes out to 120 million Euros, and adjusted for exchange rates, that comes out to $140 million

2.) The Tenerife news article was very vague in saying if the civil/agricultural damage total or insursed damages, meaning a range of damage amount from a minimum of $140 million to a maximum of a whooping $714 million dollars

Unrelated, it would be interesting to see the GDP of just the canary islands and see what percent GDP the damage delta did is of it. --Lionheart Omega 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The source says "The regional government put a provisional figure on agricultural and civil storm damage in Tenerife at around €108 million and €300 million in the whole archipelago, though that figure was expected to climb as more information became available." Thats implies €300 million damages (=$350 million) or higher. Yes, its provisional but we don't have a final figure, and stating 350+ is standard practice.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and in answer to your comment on GDP, according to Canary Islands the GDP was 25 billion euros in 2001.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank for clearing that up, however the infrastructure damage is still separate. The fact that this storm could have caused almost 3/4 of a billion dollars in damge is remarkable. Percentage wise, Katrina's damage equaled at least .5% of the U.S.A.'s GDP. Delta's damage equals at least 1.4 % of the Canary Islands GDP, making in that way, worse than Katrina. In fact percentage-wise, it was one of the worst hurricanes of the year, only behind Cuban damage from Dennis (2.95% of GDP) and Wilma (2% of GDP)--Lionheart Omega 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Emily, in Grenada, did about 25% of its GDP in damage (last year Ivan did more than 400% its GDP in damage)... CrazyC83 22:48, 2 October 2006 (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) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)