Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 5 May 2008

2006 Atlantic hurricane season

• Featured article candidates/2006 Atlantic hurricane season

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel, after months of on and off work, it meets all the criteria. I rewrote it a while ago using the same format as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2003 Atlantic hurricane season, and I went through a PR, and now I can't see anything wrong with the article. Thanks, Juliancolton 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the refs, decide, NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Or at the very least, put the abbreviation in ()s after the first usage of the full name. Right now, it's NOAA in the first ref, and then spelled out with no explanation in the second, which is odd. You also alternate between the abbreviated version and the full name. One or the other for consistency.
• http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5106.html NHC Hurricane Research Division "Atlanti hurricane best track" current ref 1 deadlinks for me.
• Same for http://www.wmo.int/web/www/TCP/Meetings/HC28/FINAL-REPORT-HC-28.pdf which is current ref 38 "Tropical Cyclone Programme RA IV Hurricane Committee..."

All other links worked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the refs and removed the dead links. Juliancolton 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments/Leaning oppose. A better reference is needed in the Alberto section. Any reason Unnamed Tropical Storm is all capitalized in its section? Also, any reason there isn't a link to Beryl's article in its section? In the impact section, two tropical storms made landfall in the United States. However, Beryl made a direct hit on Nantucket, which is in the United States, so is there a reason that sentence is limited to Alberto and Ernesto? Check your sources. For the Chris section, it developed as a tropical depression on July 31. Also, in the Ernesto section, the article says 5 deaths were reported in Haiti, but the article says only two were. caused $500 million (2006 USD) in damage mostly in the United States - the $500 million damage figure was solely for the United States. My biggest problem with the article is the redundancies in wording and weak prose, thus potentially failing criterion 1a. The tail end of the front spawned a low pressure system which tracked to the northeast along the front. ...having little or no effects. It dissipated on July 21 having had no major effects on land. Tropical Storm Chris started off the month of August when it developed on August 4 as a tropical depression which originated from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa. The wave traversed the Atlantic, soon reaching the Caribbean, before organizing into a tropical depression. (awkward) Several of the sections say something along the lines of, "The storm became a depression on X day. Tracking west-northwestward, it intensified into a tropical storm." The impact section doesn't seem terribly useful. The other featured season articles split the impact by areas, not by storms. After all, each storm paragraph already went into some detail with the impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for the suggestions. About the impact section, while other season FAs may do it one way, if there isn't a real problem with the way this article does it than I don't see a reason to change it. Juliancolton 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done I think I got everything. Juliancolton 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding the impact section, I feel it is redundant with how the format is. The season summary lists each storm, then the impact lists each storm. I feel the format of the other seasons is better, since it is split by area, not just by storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So would you suggest removing the impact section altogether? Juliancolton 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not at all. I think it should be organized by area, not by storm, like the other season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright, done. Ready to support, or do you still see issues? If so, would you mind giving specific examples? Thanks, Juliancolton 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not quite ready to support, but it's getting there. Rather than using the standard formula for the first paragraph, I'd much prefer to see something interesting that explains the article. The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation tells the reader very little, after all. I'd like a less jargony and more thorough explanation for why the season was so inactive. As that was probably the biggest feature of the season, it deserves more than just a short paragraph in the lede (which was added to the article while the season was still active). In the table for Predictions of tropical activity in the 2006 season, why does Record low activity have 2 hurricanes as the record low? If the time period is limited to 1950-2006, that should be indicated, and also probably be explained why it stops at 1950. Regarding the sentence, On December 5, 2005, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2006 season, predicting a well above-average season (17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher); first, does that mean the very first ever forecast by Klotzbach, or only the first for the season? Second, it could use clarification in prose. The way it is worded might suggest 17 named storms, as well as 9 hurricanes, of which 5 Cat. 3 or higher. Quick little thing. You say On May 22, 2006, NOAA and then later On August 8, 2006, the NOAA. The former links to the acronym, while has the acronym piped, but is there a reason one has the NOAA and the other doesn't? I still don't think you get why I was meaning for the impact section. Detailed impact isn't very necessary, since there are sub-articles for every storm, and the List of article has an impact paragraph. I'd like to see an overall impact review for each major location (Mexico, Caribbean, US, Bermuda and Canada). The storm names section is a bit awkward. Sources are needed for the Accumulated Cyclone Energy section, as well as the storm names section. The latter has some redundant information, and is the phrase and the first to have no names retired in the 21st century. really needed? The season was only the seventh of the century. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok, I think I got everything. If I still havn't gotten the impact section right, please let me know. Thanks. Juliancolton 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm still not happy yet. For example, the sourcing still needs to be better. In the impact section, the first two references do not support the first three sentences in the section. Also, for Mexico, when you say "For the most part" - that implies part of Mexico did receive significant damage during the season in the Atlantic. Alternatively, you could mention the Pacific hurricanes that affected Mexico, if you were comparing activity between the basins. Also, any reason the US is listed first in the impact section? I'd like to see mention of Caribbean impact, since that's where the most direct deaths occurred (Haiti in Ernesto). The sentence in Forecasting uncertainty - "several of the tropical cyclones in the season were forecasted with error." - cannot be supported by a single reference to a graph of Tropical Storm Chris. I still feel a dedicated section of the season's lack of activity should be included, perhaps including that first paragraph of forecasting uncertainty. Is a retirement section really needed? The wording could be improved, all around, and in particular there are many redundancies in the writing of the storms section. After Gordon's passage through Britain... after winds of 80 mph (130 km/h) affected the country." Any reason for present tense - "damage totals up to $250,000 (2006 USD)" - in Alberto's section? In Ernesto section - "and dissipating over Upstate New York" - the article and TCR do not say it dissipated over New York, rather being absorbed over Canada. The image of Gordon and Helene should indicate which one in the picture is which. Overall, more work is needed for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Any better? I think I got everything except for the lack of activity section which I'm looking for information for. Juliancolton 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Let me know when you get that section, then I'll look at it again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Alright, I added it. See if you think it's good or if you think there should be more. Juliancolton 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<--

• Regarding the forecasting uncertainty, the section is pointless if it only talks about Chris. If Chris was the only poorly forecasted storm, than that info should go in the Chris article. If there were others poorly forecasted, then the others should be mentioned. You have the facts wrong in the lack of activity section. and three attained major hurricane status, which tied with 2002 for the least since 1997 - the source doesn't say that. Unless I'm counting wrong, there were only two major hurricanes during the season, which would be correct as the fewest since 1997. Please double check your facts to make sure the refs add up. Again, only two sentences mention the actual reasoning for lack of activity. I'm still not happy with the prose (criterion 1a), and I very much recommend getting a copyeditor to look over the article, as no one but yourself (and one other minor edit) has edited the article since it's been on PR. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support An interesting read, well referenced, very readable. Thank goodness for slow hurricane seasonas! Dincher (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. And yes, I love easy hurricane seasons. :) Juliancolton 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question (not supporting or opposing yet): In the lede, it says, "However, no tropical cyclones formed in the month of October, the first time this had happened since the 1994 season." Does that mean that the record is for the lack of formation of storms during October, or the lack of formation of storms during and after October? Titoxd 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just checked the 1994-2006 seasons, and it means it was the first time since '94 that no storms have formed within the month of October. Juliancolton 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)