Talk:1982 Florida subtropical storm

1982 Florida subtropical storm has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

1982 Florida subtropical storm is part of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
December 16, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 25, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Not bad. Might want to consider moving it to Subtropical Storm One (1982). Good luck! íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

It's almost B class. More Wikilinks and inline sourcing would be good. Also, the Atlantic ocean section should be put in the preps, IMO. It's mostly about how the race was postponed, and what could've happened. Phrases like (see above) should be avoided. Be sure to add sourcing to every last statement. Metric units are needed. Also, I doubt damage totals for those Florida counties are still complete. It's 23 years after the event, and I seriously doubt it would take that long for such a minimal storm. The three Florida impact paragraphs should be trimmed down to two, as there's repetitive info. All in all, not too bad. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete, you mean? It also needs an overall copyedit. – Ch acor 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, whoops. True, it needs a good copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: Unnamed storms are never retired. There's no need to say "because of lack of effects, the storm was not retired" or similar. – Ch acor 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, probably also needs a LOT more sourcing/citing. – Ch acor 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the three leftover counties without damage reports, no luck. I searched through all three counties.Mitchazenia V3.0 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the assessment is done. In 2005 you're unlikely to get a break down by county for damage, let alone in 1982. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't, you mean? :P – Ch acor 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! I really shouldn't be editing with 2 hours of sleep :/ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the 1974 Subtropical Storm One report says it occurred so it is a fact. [1]Mitchazenia 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should say something like (but not exactly) "Its formation was unusual, but not unique; a subtropical storm in 1974 formed in a similar way". Remember, no original research, so every last statement in the article needs to be sourced. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cant figure out this ref name thing though.Mitchazenia V3.0 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how you do it. {{cite web|author=Whoever the author is |year=When it was published |title=The title of the article |publisher=Publisher's name; for NHC and Noaa sites it's NOAA. If there is none, delete the section |accessdate=Year-Month number (01 January, 12 December)-Day number |url=www.whatever.com}}</ref>

So, the 1982 Monthly weather review would be {{cite web|author=Gilbert B. Clark|year=1983|title=Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1982|publisher=National Hurricane Center|accessdate=2006-10-17|url=http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/1982.pdf}}</ref> The Wikiproject is really pushing for sources in articles, so if you just do Cite web in the beginning, it will save time later on. What I do is take all the information that's out there on a particular storm, see what fits where (Florida impact, meteorological conditions, preparations). As I put the information in, I use cite web right away. If a site only has one piece of information, but it's still pretty good info, add that little tidbit (in your own words), and put a source right after that info is done. It will take some time, but it's worth it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not what i meant- i meant the ref name thing- so it joins in with the rest.Mitchazenia V3.0 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give it a ref name that's easy and use it every time you used that source. For example, <ref name="mwr"/> would work for the monthly weather review. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that-what if i need to use a ref name more than once?Mitchazenia V3.0 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You use the ref name you used before. Use <ref name="mwr"/> every time after you do the first ref. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:For the first one i mean..ugh... every time i put it up-the link dissapears.~~

Figured it out :>

Mitchazenia V3.0 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class yet? (If you plan to GA Nominate it, please let me do it for one reason: I wanna see one of my made articles be a GA).Mitchazenia V3.0 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the newspaper reports at the time refered the subtropical storm as a "noreaster" since the subtropical storm was found out as a subtropical after the fact. Storm05 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite B class. Someone needs to give it a copyedit, and combine some repetitive sections. The Florida impact section, for example, should combine the second and third paragraphs. Don't just erase the space. Work the information in. Storm05's right, check the newspaper archive. I just did a quick search and found some info. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i meant was the name of the storm, i think the newspapers, local forecasters and possibly the NHC orginally thought that ST 1 was a noreaster but after the season was over the storm was determined to be a subtropical. Storm05 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, not really. The newspaper called it a gale or a storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

GA pass. Good job! Juliancolton (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After we get done with Danny, and SSHS on FAC, I think you should put this up for FAC. Juliancolton (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its at Wikipedia:Peer review to get more advice for now. Maybe after. ^Mitch32^contribs 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than needing aftermath section, I think it could easily be A. Juliancolton (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath don't exist as this was a majorly weak storm. Not much you can find with $10 million. Also, A is pretty much the same as FA, so it'll probably be A when its up at FAC.^Mitch32^contribs 20:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1982 Florida subtropical storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]