Talk:Tropical Storm Isabel (1985)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Isabel (1985) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Isabel (1985) 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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Todo

I have a feeling this is under construction, so I put it as a stub for now. Hurricanehink 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Rainfall totals from Isabel
Rainfall totals from Isabel
On the right is a rainfall picture from Isabel. If this is used, be sure to mention the little amounts of rain due to low amounts of convection. Hurricanehink 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Another satellite picture would be useful for the Florida landfall. This picture shows the storm shortly before landfall on IR, while this one shows a visible shot. The visible one is more impressive looking, but a little misleading. Which should be used? Hurricanehink 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly misleading, because it happened. It's not like it's a lie. But, then again, I see what you mean. Maybe we could write under it "Isabel before being downgraded to a TD". Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a lie, but seeing a picture of a tropical storm with a possible eye gives a false impression of how poorly organized it is. I'm leaning towards the visible, and in the article it it could be said, "Despite a well-organized structure, as shown in the satellite shot on the left (or right), Isabel lost much of its convection prior to making landfall." The ideal scenario is, if there's enough room, to put both pictures on either side. Do you think there's enough information to do that? Hurricanehink 12:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
By the time I'm through with it, there will definetly be enough room for as many pictures as needed! Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you done? Just curious. Hurricanehink 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, did some re-organization. I also used the IR shot. Hurricanehink 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this still a start article? Now that we have the Mayemes disaster in it, wouldn't it be a bit better? Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's almost there. I just want to add some info about the southeast United States. Hurricanehink 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's done now. Is this better that start class? Hurricanehink 21:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Here's some links that might help.

Hurricanehink 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging?

Aparently, there is an article already on The Mameyes disaster, which occurred from a deadly mudslide. I propose that be merged into here, and then condensed a bit. Hurricanehink 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, got it. Hurricanehink 16:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced from Mameyes disaster

[edit] Other Possible Causes

Twenty years after the tragedy various news reports on the conmemoration of the disaster feature interviews to various of the disaster survivors. Some of them talked about an illegal firecracker factory that used to operate in Mameyes but was closed at the time. They believe that apparently lightning struck nearby an old firecracker powder deposit in turn exploded and caused the landslide. They also point to French rescue dogs that not only seemed to identify the location of dead and alive humans, but also found traces of gun powder. It seems that these facts were kept from public knowledge because if the Federal Emergency Management Agency found about this wouldn't count as a natural disaster and no funds would be allocated for assistance.

[edit] Children Premonition

Less than a week before the tragedy a group of five-year-old children at a Head Start learning center drew pictures of houses falling down the mountain slope, along with crosses simbolizing tombs. Their teacher posted their pictures on a bulletin board and days later, after the tragedy, she realized that these drawings were some sort of premonition from the children. One of the children drew his own home with two crosses, one on top and one at the bottom; him and his brother died on that night and their bodies were never recovered.

[edit] Urban Legends

Many Puerto Ricans speculated that what happened in Mameyes was a punishment from God: The area had been known for having a high incidence of crime. On the other hand, after a volcano erupted in Colombia about a month later, killing thousands, many started rumors that Latin American countries were doomed, noting that Mexico, Puerto Rico and Colombia had suffered large tragedies within two months. Many citizens of other Hispanic countries actually wondered which country would be hit next. As it turned out, a considerable amount of time went by before another Hispanic country suffered a large magnitude tragedy.

That would be Nevado del Ruiz, the deadliest volcanic eruption of the last century. — jdorje (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International help

The government of Puerto Rico received messages of condolence from many countries from around the world. A television marathon was organized, with Mexican actress Veronica Castro giving a memorable speech about how it was Mexico's turn now to help Puerto Rico; after Puerto Rico had sent help to the victims of the Mexico City earthquake that had taken place one month before. Emergency workers, along with dogs, arrived from Mexico, Venezuela, France and other countries.

These things are from the Mameyes disaster article. The article is in the process of being merged, and this is unsourced. Hurricanehink 16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of this rumors are discussed in this newspaper article. It's one of Puerto Rico's top newspapers, but it's in Spanish. Thief12 12:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Are we allowed, though, to cite spanish sites for english pages? Hurricanehink 12:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We site French pages for storms in the Southern Hemisphere, so I don't see why not. Jake52 2 April 2006
English language sources are preferred but if they are not available non-English sources are acceptable, see WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. There is a "language=" call in {{cite web}} for that purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we add this info into the article? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. If you're going to add it in, be sure to rewrite it so the information comes from the article. If there's anything from the writing that's not in the article, don't include it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do I have to rewrite it? Didn't you or someone else write it? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What I said was you have to rewrite it so the information only comes from that source. If there's anything in the paragraph that's not in the source, don't include it. In other words, make sure all of the information is in the source. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't really do that. It's in Spanish, and I've only been learning it for about 3 or 4 years. Plus, only one or two sentences come up when I go to the source. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Woohoo</sarcasm>. I really should have looked at the source recently. It says the article is not available, meaning we can't use any of this. Sorry. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I found info on some stuff here. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And the rest at this. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, we definitely can't use those, see WP:ASR. The first says it is content from wikipedia. In fact its a mirror of an old copy of The Mameyes disaster (I think this version), which was unsourced and now redirects here. The second doesn't explicitly say so, but looks like it is the same to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just about to say that. Sorry Icelandic Hurricane, but you have to find a real source for this. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just add in the info and place [citation needed] at the end of each section, or would that cause the article to be demoted to a start class? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The classification guidelines are just that - guidelines, theres no need to be quite that bureaucratic about it. Having said that, this stuff is on the talk page and hasn't been verified yet and verifiability is policy, so don't add it until there is a source for it; it can stay here until then.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination - issue

This opening para in the history section, can someone please explain North Eastern Pacific Ocean as part of an Atlantic storm.

  • A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on September 29. The wave moved westward, and entered the eastern Caribbean Sea on October 5. The wave continued westward and ultimately moved into the eastern North Pacific Ocean, though an area of disturbed weather on the northern edge of the wave organized more while south of Hispaniola. An area of low pressure developed, and on October 7 the system organized into a tropical depression near the southern coast of Hispaniola. Gnangarra 10:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can this be linked to an explanation on naming, and why it wont be used until 2009.

  • Lack of Retirement
    • Despite the great amount of damage, the name Isabel was not retired. However, it was retired on its next use in 2003, and was replaced by Ida for the 2009 season. Gnangarra 10:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mameyes.jpg as it taken by a US govt employee during his work for the US govt should the copyright tag be PD-US//PD-USgov Gnangarra 10:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

i have added note to nomination page saying pending minor fixes occuring quickly Gnangarra 10:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The fate of the wave isn't relevant to the history of the storm, I took it out. The retirement section has been rephrased to expand on that a little better. I also changed the landslide pic to a higher res one from the USGS site and tagged it with PD-USGov-Interior-USGS.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Promoted

Thanks for the quick response, congratulations to the editors of this article. Gnangarra 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo2

Now what? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Inline sources, more lede. I might have screwed up with the FEMA returns. The website doesn't say where they gave that money. For all we know, it could've been Puerto Rico. Southeast damage info, if any, should be found. If there is none, then that should be said. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 24 September 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) 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)