Talk:Hurricane Danielle (2010)

Merge

Should we merge this article? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am against merging this page. It has been proposed on IRC and was merged, but I think it should be kept it is notable. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in my opinion is marginally notable, but the article was in poor quality. And because of that, I thought merging would be better than fixing. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, it has had an interesting MH. This article is not so bad, it need sources, thats all. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, what's interesting about this storm? Its a classic Cape Verde hurricane, nothing is special about its MH. However, it will probably have impact in the form of High Swells, Rip Currents, etc. However, these impacts will be minor at most, but yes, Danielle is notable enough for an article. However, it is not notable for an article right now, but when Danielle has ET , when the season is over or when the TCR is out it's a good time to write this article. Darren23^Edits|Mail 19:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a great example of a typical Cape-Verde classic. Briefly threatened land, underwent Rapid Intensification. Interesting storm in general. In my opinion, that enough for an article of decent quality (C class or better). YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

The article appears better now(I fixed the tone of the MH a bit), but many other fishlike cape-verde hurricanes have articles, too; see these three storms. If you want to make an article, be bold and do it. It's fine as it is. Rye998 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Danielle is not comparable to those storms, as its impact was indirect and very minimal, if there is any. Bill made landfall, Gordon hit the Azores and the remnants of Helene hit Europe. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was redirected, as the article no longer served its purpose, and @TropicalAnalystwx13: is improving the season article (which will likely be a GA soon anyway). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated but interesting note, I think this is our first GA merge since Erick 07. Not that I mind, this article didn't deserve to pass GA in the first place. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Information needs to be updated with post-storm report

Though substantial work has been done to improve this article, it's laking the final report in which data is fine-tuned and corrections are made. Hurricane Danielle's Tropical Cyclone Report Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I added information from this report to the article. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Danielle (2010)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "Hurricane Danielle was the first of four category 4 hurricanes during the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season." - Link "category 4 hurricane" to the SSHS
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...Danielle developed as a typical Cape Verde-type hurricane from a tropical wave on August 21." - You might want to link "tropical wave" here, since people unfamiliar with the subject think "what the heck is a tropical wave"?
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• There should probably be more details between when it became a tropical storm and a category 4 hurricane, and also include that dates, as it might appear that Danielle just jumped from a tropical storm to a 135 mph hurricane.
  • They are already in there. It says: "Danielle quickly re-intensified and became a category 1 hurricane again early on August 25.... Further intensification was gradual, and Danielle again reached category 2 strength late on August 25.... After a few days of gradual strengthening, Danielle began to rapidly intensify on August 27, and became the first major hurricane of the season.... Continuing the rapid intensification, Hurricane Danielle briefly became a category 4 hurricane on August 27...."Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I meant in the lead, where is says: "Quickly intensifying, the new tropical depression became a tropical storm eighteen hours after formation. Further intensification continued and Danielle became a Category 4 hurricane with peak winds of 135 miles per hour (217 km/h)". It sounds passive, and seems like Danielle suddenly became a category 4 hurricane.--12george1 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done - Added more information to the lead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• "It then weakened, and finally ceased to be a hurricane on August 31." - Two issues, first: when it says that it had ceased to be a hurricane, that might make some people there is something missing like it hadn't dissipated. Second: August 31 contradicts what the infobox says, which reads August 30.
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The hurricane was the first in a series of named storms lasting through late September." - I know what you mean, but wouldn't that not seem unusual? It seems to be implying that something that usually happens, several named storms in August and September. I think you should make sound more important and say like "The hurricane was the first in a rapid succession of eleven named storms, which ended in late September", or "The hurricane started a period in which at least one tropical cyclone was active in the Atlantic for 36 days".
  •  Done - I agree, the first founds more impressive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• "On August 20, 8:00 AM EDT..." - Link EDT
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• "As the depression tracked slowly westward, it quickly intensified, and the following day, it was upgraded to Tropical Storm Danielle, the fourth tropical storm of the season." - Looks like too many commas, why not rewrite so there are fewer commas and the idea seems less broken up. Example: *"The depression quickly intensified as it track slowly westward, and was upgraded to a Tropical Storm Danielle on the following day, becoming the fourth named storm of the season."
  •  Done - While grammatically correct, it is a bit unwieldy. I broke it into two sentences. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• There are several occasions when mph is spelled out, while it is abbreviated in the lede; either spell out 135 mph (217 km/h) in the lede or abbreviate the use of the unit in the Meteorological history.
  •  Done - Removed abbreviation in lead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Danielle weakened to a tropical storm with 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) winds late on August 24." According to the TCR this was an error; say that it had a remained a hurricane and mention that it was operationally downgraded to a tropical storm late on August 24.
  •  Done - Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Hurricane-force winds extended out for 50 miles (80 km), and tropical storm-force winds extended out for 205 miles (330 km)" There is no period at the end of this sentence
  •  Done - LoL. Sorry, this made me laugh because your sentence above is missing a period too! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The hurricane-force winds were in a radius of 60 miles (97 km), and the tropical storm-force winds extended out for 205 miles (330 km) from the center" - Same issue
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• There is also unit inconsistency with miles, because it is spelled out here but abbreviated in the Impact section.
  •  Done - I can't find it anywhere, so I think my other changes may have removed it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• "extratropical transition" and "extratropical" lead to the same article, delink one or the other.
  •  Done - Delinked "extratropical", as people are more likely to click the other. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Preparations and impact

• "The wave that produced Danielle caused light rain and gusty winds around Cape Verde in the days leading up to the formation of the storm as a tropical system. On August 27, a tropical storm watch was issued on Bermuda before being cancelled during the afternoon of August 28. Danielle only produced high surf and light rain as it passed about 400 mi (640 km) east of Bermuda." - Reference #21 does not cover the affects produced in Cape Verde or Bermuda.
  •  Done - Cleaned up and removed information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Along the east coast of the United States, two people drowned after being caught in rip currents produced by the storm." - Reference #22 does not cover two people being drowned, in fact, it does not even cover Danielle, it is actually a news alert about Hurricane Earl.
  •  Done - Removed sentence—it had been in the article before I started working on it, and it was contradicted by sources given beneath it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Hurricane Danielle's outflow exposed the core of the more southerly Hurricane Earl. However, Hurricane Earl (then a tropical storm) retained strong circulation, and the center eventually moved back into the convection flow.[23] The outflow kept Earl a tropical storm before Danielle accelerated north and northeastward.[24]" - Sounds like something that should be in the Meteorological history.
  •  Done - Moved it, but I'm not certain that it really belongs there. It may be good in its own subsection at the bottom of the "Meteorological history" section. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

References

• Spell out and link NOAA on ref #2
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Include the date when the TCR (ref #3) was made (December 15, 2010); also, link National Hurricane Center on this one, and delink uses on later references.
  •  Done - I had to change from {{Cite report}} to {{Cite journal}} since the {{Cite report}} doesn't support the date field. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reference #16: add the date, the author, and replace NOAA with National Hurricane Center
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reference #17: Similar issues need to be fixed
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• On refs #23 & 24, add the first names and replace NOAA with National Hurricane Center
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Spell out and link NASA on ref #27
  •  Done - Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Great article overall, however, it falls just short of the GA criteria, IMO. Although I had several issues, it was nothing major, so I will give you a week to fix these issues, or else I will fail. Well, hope you can fix these problem over the next week, and good luck on the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I withdrew from the WikiCup after a little over a week due to the strong opinion of many editors that it is just a race to get points and do the minimum, and I found that it was encouraging me to "cut the corners" on my articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot that your name was in the purple background ("withdrawn"). Well, you could have just got yourself 30 points, because I am now passing this article since it now meets the GA criteria, IMO.--12george1 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)