Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Atlantic hurricane season
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:59, 11 May 2008.
2006 Atlantic hurricane season edit
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 Tropical Cyclone 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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..."
- Weak Support
Comments/Weak 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)[reply]- 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 Tropical Cyclone 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done I think I got everything. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- So would you suggest removing the impact section altogether? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Alright, done. Ready to support, or do you still see issues? If so, would you mind giving specific examples? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Ok, I think I got everything. If I still havn't gotten the impact section right, please let me know. Thanks. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Any better? I think I got everything except for the lack of activity section which I'm looking for information for. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know when you get that section, then I'll look at it again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I added it. See if you think it's good or if you think there should be more. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know when you get that section, then I'll look at it again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any better? I think I got everything except for the lack of activity section which I'm looking for information for. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Ok, I think I got everything. If I still havn't gotten the impact section right, please let me know. Thanks. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Alright, done. Ready to support, or do you still see issues? If so, would you mind giving specific examples? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- So would you suggest removing the impact section altogether? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
<--
- 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)[reply]
- Ok, I removed the section about Chris. Regarding the copyediting, do you know of anybody I could ask? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as you got a copyeditor, the prose comment has been addressed. Generally, I support this becoming featured, as featured does not mean perfect. I still feel the content in the storm section could be better. For example, the Ernesto section doesn't mention at all that it affected Haiti or Cuba. I'm not a big fan of saying that a tropical wave organized into a tropical depression, as it's factually incorrect and oversimplifies things. A tropical wave can lead to the formation of a tropical cyclone, by creating the impetus for convection, but the wave itself doesn't form into the tropical cyclone. It's the same reason one tropical wave can spawn more than one storm. In the impact section, there still is no proper source for the sentence that says no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, the first such occurrence since 2001; the first reference in the section links to an article about Alberto. I still wasn't please about the Mexico section in impact, so I fixed it myself. I'd like better wording for Canada saw the effects of several tropical cyclones. The season impact table looks awkward where it is. Could you move it elsewhere so there isn't too much beneath it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed everything. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as you got a copyeditor, the prose comment has been addressed. Generally, I support this becoming featured, as featured does not mean perfect. I still feel the content in the storm section could be better. For example, the Ernesto section doesn't mention at all that it affected Haiti or Cuba. I'm not a big fan of saying that a tropical wave organized into a tropical depression, as it's factually incorrect and oversimplifies things. A tropical wave can lead to the formation of a tropical cyclone, by creating the impetus for convection, but the wave itself doesn't form into the tropical cyclone. It's the same reason one tropical wave can spawn more than one storm. In the impact section, there still is no proper source for the sentence that says no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, the first such occurrence since 2001; the first reference in the section links to an article about Alberto. I still wasn't please about the Mexico section in impact, so I fixed it myself. I'd like better wording for Canada saw the effects of several tropical cyclones. The season impact table looks awkward where it is. Could you move it elsewhere so there isn't too much beneath it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I removed the section about Chris. Regarding the copyediting, do you know of anybody I could ask? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An interesting read, well referenced, very readable. Thank goodness for slow hurricane seasonas! Dincher (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. And yes, I love easy hurricane seasons. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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(?!? - cool stuff) 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Tropical Cyclone 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd like to support this article, but I can't quite yet.
- "Because of several factors, including a rapidly forming El Niño event, Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and the presence of high pressure area to the Azores high situated near Bermuda contributed to a below–average season." What does that mean?
- "By late July, a tropical wave emegered off the coast of Africa and traversed the Atlantic Ocean. " Emerged? Merged?
- Why is Landfall capitalised in the last row of the table in Season impact?
- The article tells us that the 2006 hurricane season began on 1 June 2006, and officially ended on 30 November 2006, dates which by convention delimit the period of each year". But we're also told that Tropical Storm Zeta is considered to be part of the 2005 season, even though it didn't form until 30 December 2005. These two statements don't appear on the face of it to be consistent.
- "The table on the right ..." I don't believe the text should make any reference to, or assumptions about, the layout actually seen by the user. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding comment number four, those dates delimit the period by convention. Zeta was a very unusual storm, and was considered part of the season because, although it formed in 2005, it persisted into January of 2006. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I just don't understand what's meant by "convention" in this case then, because it seems to me that the convention would have Zeta in neither the 2005 nor 2006 seasons, as it started after 30 November 2005 and before 1 June 2006. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I think I got everything. How does it look? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely moving in the right direction I think. I'm not sure about the Storm names section though. Retirement is an exceedingly small subsection that would probably be better merged? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I agree about that. I removed it, as most of it was redundant to what was already said. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely moving in the right direction I think. I'm not sure about the Storm names section though. Retirement is an exceedingly small subsection that would probably be better merged? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding comment number four, those dates delimit the period by convention. Zeta was a very unusual storm, and was considered part of the season because, although it formed in 2005, it persisted into January of 2006. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to do what I can to help, but will you please read through the article carefully, and sort out the obvious errors. What does this mean, for instance? "On 12 September, a vigorous tropical wave moved off the west coast of Africa on 11 September". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I should've seen that earlier. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The official start of the Atlantic hurricane season is 1 June ...". If you can clarify what this official start/conventional date stuff really means then I may be inclined to support this article. Is there a starting gun on 1 June? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sort of like a season of the year. Take Winter for example. Even though there are specific beginning and ending dates to Winter, snow or ice can still occur outside those dates. Same thing with the hurricane season dates. While storms in theory can for any time of the year, the majority of the activity occurrs between the dates of June 1 and November 30. I tried to work it better in the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that most hurricanes do indeed happen between those dates. I still don't understand why that makes them "offical" or "conventional" start and end dates though, when it is quite clear from the example of Zeta that the season is determined by the calendar year. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can indeed get confusing. The official Atlantic hurricane season, as defined by the National Hurricane Center, is June 1 to November 31. Essentially, these are dates that somebody determined are when the majority of the storms form on average. But it has been determined by a large discussion that if a storm is active in two years, it is considered part of both seasons. I hope I cleared things up for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea of an official season still seems very strange to me, but that's not your fault, or the fault of this article. I'm switching to support now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can indeed get confusing. The official Atlantic hurricane season, as defined by the National Hurricane Center, is June 1 to November 31. Essentially, these are dates that somebody determined are when the majority of the storms form on average. But it has been determined by a large discussion that if a storm is active in two years, it is considered part of both seasons. I hope I cleared things up for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that most hurricanes do indeed happen between those dates. I still don't understand why that makes them "offical" or "conventional" start and end dates though, when it is quite clear from the example of Zeta that the season is determined by the calendar year. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The issues I raised have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support, and an even further thank you for helping me copyedit it. It really helped. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I found far too many MoS issues in this article (and items we've been over before on other hurricane FACs). Please ask User:Epbr123 to check the article, and please read my edit summaries so these won't need to be corrected on future FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. I requested help from Epbr123, and I'll go through and check the article right now. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.