Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Debby (2000)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Debby (2000) 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.
Good topic starHurricane Debby (2000) is part of the 2000 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
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 1, 2013Good article nomineeListed
February 14, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Todo

[edit]

Needs cleanup of grammar, spelling and metrification to meet B-class, I think. NSLE 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I could insert pic of Debby's remants near the Yucatan Peninsula, or is it too unnotable to deserve to be there? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on bettering it. Now I'm fine with its existance. It could be B, but one important thing is missing. There should be more info on Preparations in Florida. At one point, the NHC forecasted Debby to be near the Florida Keys as a strong Cat. 2, while one computer model indiciated a Category 4 hurricane there. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a picture of the forecast track in existance? I found one, but it's not a USGov site, unless if that's where the picture was made. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did metrification. How's that? Is this almost a B-class now? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I question the damage total. The WMO report says that Debby caused 500,000 in damage (2000 DRP), but that is not equal to $16 million. That needs a source. Also, please don't copy and paste exactly what I said. I gave some links below that explained the situation in Florida. IMO, that should be given much more info before being called a B. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the damage; I just converted the DOP (it's not DRP) into USD. That's what it came out as. And ok, I won't copy and paste exactly what you wrote. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must have screwed something up. I used this converter site and got $34,000 in damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I'll change the main page to reflect the correct damage. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for information on the aftermath and looked for some available damage photos, but found nothing. I thought I'd say this just incase if someone knew of somewhere where there was information. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links you might find useful. It covers a little bit about the aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So I guess there's likely no USGov damage photos. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the cleanup tag now? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A cleanup isn't needed, but parts of the article need copyediting. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such as?... íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a lot of little things. {{th}} is not generally used, nautical miles shouldn't be used, this sentence (Cuba evacuated around 7,000 people to remove themselves from Debby's projected path), the Florida part of the preparations (which should be expanded greatly), small sentences (This caused gas prices to rise), Another close measurement, Also on the island, the storm was indirectly responsible for one death; a 78-year-old[6] man fell off his roof in San Juan[20] when trying to remove his satellite antenna before the storm.[2], with widespread thirst was finally put to rest. The writing isn't that good in places, and needs a good copyedit, along with not as many red links. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed most of what you said needed a cleanup. Better (I assume it is, but I don't know how much)? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... a little bit. Some places still don't make sense. You should get some more outside eyes to give it a copyedit. First, you shouldn't copy and paste anything from the article into the intro. The intro should be a summary, not a re-write. Next, you should never use the word "some" in an article. Yea, you should get some outside eyes. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a copy edit on the preparations. It should look a lot better now, multiple spelling errors and gramatical issues. Aeon 05:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go back and fix some of the reference problems. Some of the references now show up like [18] rather than having a link. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that copyedit someone did actually made some things worse. I'm fixing those problems right now. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the problems. Now what more can be done to the article? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite web formatting, I guess. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh.. I hate that! Sorry for being so lazy, but isn't there someone that's good at it and enjoys it? I know TimL2k4 did a nice job with Hurricane Camille, so maybe he could do it. But very few things would make me add the cite web formatting. Sorry. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? All you do is <ref name="whatever">{{cite web|author=Some Guy|year=Publish year|title=Title of the page|accessdate=2006-07-12|url=www.website.com}}</ref>. It takes very little work. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do it. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And about the aftermath, is what I think an aftermath is different from what it really means? Because in those aftermath websites you (hink) showed my above, I only found one statement I thought was the aftermath. Can someone (Hurricanehink I guess, since your the only one that responds) go through the two websites and check for the aftermath info, because the lack of aftermath in the article is one of the reasons it's not a GA. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the links again, you're right, there's little to no aftermath. You could just move the aftermath into the impact section. Also, as a tip, don't copy and paste it into the impact. Work it in. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. How's it look? And once I finish the citeweb thingy, do you think this article is worthy of GA nomination again? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moved sentence makes little to no sense. You should rewrite and work it in better. Were the 30,000 people on Puerto Rico? Also, the vacationers thing is speculation and not needed. After cite webbing, you should get someone to copyedit it first. Maybe a GA nom would be warrented after that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't someone already copyedit it? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a few places that don't make sense. For example, the U.S. territories section. In the USVI sentences, you say the damage was at $200,000, but then you said in another sentence that damage was minimal and mostly from power outages. Similarly, you use five sentences to describe rainfall totals. Part of writing compellingly is combining short or repetitive sentences. Wouldn't something like this work better? "While parallelling the northern coast of Puerto Rico, Debby produced heavy rainfall of up to 12.63 inches (320 mm) in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, with unofficial totals of up around 17 inches (430 mm) in the interior mountains. The rainfall produced flooding and mudslides, causing damage to bridges and roads." The only thing that wasn't said was the 5 inches in San Juan, and that could be said in the same sentence with the car accidents. For example, "The hurricane dropped around 5 inches (127 mm) of rain in San Juan, producing slick roads that resulted in several minor car accidents". You don't need to mention about the possible indirect traffic deaths. Either they happened and they should be mentioned, or they didn't and shouldn't. If you're describing the impact of a storm in a particular aspect, like houses, you should do it all in the same sentence. For example, "Debby's rainfall impact 406 homes, five of which were moderately to severely damaged". You shouldn't have the damage total right next to the housing damage, as that would imply that all of the damage came from the 406 effected houses. As a summary, it works to have the total number of deaths and damage in the same sentence. For example, "In Puerto Rico, Debby caused $501,000 in damage (2000 USD, $556,000 2005 USD) and one indirect death due to a man falling from the roof of his home". The exact details of the indirect death isn't that important. Is it that important to Hurricane Debby that the man was 81, or that he was trying to install a satellite dish? Things like these need to be fixed. If you want, you could copy and paste my suggestions in the article. As more todo, you should try and do what I did for the other sections. Combining sentences makes it more consise and interesting. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Here's some links for Debby. I'm not sure which ones you've already done, as these were some I had lying around (I was planning on doing a Debby article a while, but decided not to).

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added some more from them to the article. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debby became the unnofficial subtropical cyclone?

[edit]

I was looking through the sattelite imagery on the gibbs thing, and I noticed that Debby's remants seemed to have absorbed another low and organized itself before making landfall in North Carolina. Then I went on the HPC and found the David Roth (thegreatdr) said there was an unofficial subtropical storm in late august. I looked at the page and found the dates matched the dates Debby passed through there, and the subtropical storm was in the same area. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Debby restrengthened into a subtropical storm in late August and made landfall in south Carolina. Should this be brought to the NHC? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds possible, but unfortunately, you don't have any evidence. The NHC didn't even treat that other storm as an actual storm. I'm removing it from the article, but it can stay here on the talk page. If anyone, you should ask User:Thegreatdr, as he works at the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What should I tell him? That Debby and the unnofficial subtropical storm are the same system and you should fix the HPC to reflect that? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should ask him if there is a chance that they are the same system. That's what I'd do. Remember, he's part of the government. You don't know what they know about you... ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Sorta. I meant you should have asked him or something. You have no evidence that Debby was in fact the other subtropical storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
For the reference cleanup, you might want to use {{cite web}} to help you. To claim a web address as a reference you certainly need details like date of last access. TheGrappler 05:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination has failed

[edit]

The Good article nomination for Hurricane Debby (2000) has failed, for the following reason(s):

  • The prose is not compelling, and has quite a few awkward phrases like "disorganized hurricane", "Due to the minimal damage resulted from Debby", "amount of tourism", etc. The consistent use of passive voice affects readability quite a bit. Needs a thorough copyedit for professional tone and grammar.
  • There is not sufficient explanation or wikilinking of topics for non-specialist readers. For example, in the opening paragraph, you call it a hurricane and a cyclone. Are those different? The same? Which one was it? Also you introduce the concept of a hurricane "category" without explaining or wikilinking it. Either provide a brief explanation of technical terms, or link them to their respective articles so people can go read what they mean.
  • You say it formed August 19 off the "Windward Islands" (Where are those? Wikilink?) but later you say it formed August 16 in Africa.
  • Now we're now talking about Tropical Depression 7.. what is that?
  • Aftermath section needs to be fleshed out or integrated into another section.

Keep up the great work and try again! Aguerriero (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination has failed

[edit]

The Good article nomination for Hurricane Debby (2000) has failed, for the following reason:

Above concerns have not been appropriately addressed. Weak grammar still makes reading of the article difficult. Awkward sentences still exist ("This pleased the local Cubans" - so what?) The storm history is very stop-start. Again, the point made above about formation date has not been corrected. Please address these issues before re-nominating. Chacor 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the formation date issue. Plus, this article has had 2 1/2 copyedits. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which, obviously, have not been enough. Nowhere near a good article standard, IMO. Like I said, it's hard to read. Chacor 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Debby (2000)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeorgeC. I'll be reviewing this article for you very shortly. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Favorable conditions allowed the depression to become Tropical Storm Debby early on August 20 and further strengthening into a hurricane occurred 24 hours later." - When you have two independent clauses, meaning they can stand alone, you need a comma. So, insert one after "August 20".
  • The sentences in the first paragraph of the lede are really "choppy". Some elaborating/more detail would probably help.
  • "Effects were most severe in Puerto Rico, where some areas experienced more than 12 inches (300 mm) of rainfall." - Some areas is pretty poor wording. I'd go with "isolated locations".
  • "At 406 homes on the island were flooded, which five suffering at least moderate damage." - Missing a word at the beginning?
  • "According to the Civil Defense Force of Dominican Republic, severe flooding in the northern portions of that country caused the evacuation of more than 700 people." - That to the.
  • "Losses in Dominican Republic were about $35,000" --> "Overall, the storm caused roughly $35,000 in damage across the island." or some variation of that.
  • "In Haiti, squalls tore tin roofs off of numerous shanty homes and subsequently flooded a few." - Link squalls.
  • "Rainfall in Cuba brought relief to an 8 month long drought impacting the region." - Hyphen between 8 and month.
  • "A strong tropical wave [e]merged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa on August 16." - The tropical wave became part of the ocean?!
  • "However, Dvorak classifications could not be initiated due to insignificant convective banding." - Could not states that it was physically impossible, which isn't true. How about "were not"?
  • "It then began to gradually organize while moving westward at about 17 mph (27 km/h)" - Any reason why? A decrease in wind shear, warmer SSTs, etc. Also, never, ever "at about". Let's use roughly or approximately.
  • "By late on August 19, convection had consolidated around a well-define center of circulation." - Missing a letter.
  • "In the initial advisory by the National Hurricane Center, the agency noted a large area of convection, weak vertical wind shear, warm sea surface temperatures (SST's), all of which produced a favorable environment for intensification." - No need for an apostrophe in SSTs...it's not possessive.
  • "Late on August 20, the center of circulation was difficult to locate due to re-organization of convection." - In the previous sentence it's 00Z, which is already pretty late. I'd reword to..."After classification, the center of circulation was difficult to locate due to the re-organization of convection."
  • This is just a general note for the article. Try to limit the use of the word "had"...expand your vocabulary!
  • "Despite reconnaissance aircraft flight reports of sustained winds ranging from 92 to 101 mph (148 to 163 km/h),[6] Six hours later, the storm reached its maximum sustained wind speed of 85 mph (140 km/h)." - I'd reword this.
  • "Hurricane force winds were very concentrated, extending only 25 miles (40 km) from the storm's center of circulation." - Dash/hyphen between hurricane and force.
  • "It made a third landfall in Virgin Gorda 75 mph (120 km/h), at 1500 UTC on August 22." - Missing some words.
  • "Early on August 23, computer models varied extensively with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GDFL) model, regarded by the National Hurricane Center as an "extreme outlier", predicted a 926 mbar (27.3 inHg) low pressure area over the Florida Keys on August 26." - Comma after extensively. predicted --> depicting.
  • "Beginning late on August 23, it was predicted that Debby would re-strengthen, as SST's were between 84 and 86 °F (29 and 30 °C) and the storm was anticipated to resume the original west-northwest movement, reducing land interaction." - No apostrophe for SSTs.
  • "However, Debby curved westward and continued to become increasingly disorganized, with the low-level circulation being displaced well west of the main deep convective area." - Was there only one deep convective area? If so, comma after main.
  • "The National Hurricane Center continued to predict re-intensification, but noting the potential for degeneration into a tropical wave during the next few days in its advisory at 0900 UTC on August 24, due to persistent wind shear." - Noting to noted.
  • "In addition to the other preparations in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, many tropical cyclone warnings and watches were posted" - Any other way to say this without saying "the other"?
  • "The other" way would be to say it like to "I'm just gonna totally reword that sentence and say "In addition, many tropical cyclone warnings and watches were posted in the Greater and Lesser Antilles." :P --12george1 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 2100 UTC on August 20, a hurricane watch was Sint Maarten, Saba, and Sint Eustatius, while there was a tropical storm watch for Antigua, Barbuda, and Anguilla." - Missing word(s)?
  • "Florida declared a state of emergency for the Florida Keys, even though the hurricane was still far from Florida[18]" - Missing a period.
  • Non-residents in Monroe County were forced to leave, causing a significant reduction in the tourism for that year." - I personally know what year, but what year?
  • "For a period of time, forecasters predicted Debby to approach the Florida Keys as a Category 2 hurricane, while the GDFL predicted a much more intense Debby near the Florida Keys as a Category 4 hurricane with a minimum central pressure of 926 mbar (27.3 inHg).[11]" - Why is this relevant to the Preparations section?
  • Not totally sure (it was there when I started working on this article and I left it there), but it probably has something to do with the evacuations and state of emergency in the Florida Keys.--12george1 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debby was attributed to about $735,000 in damage and 1 indirect fatality, which occurred in Puerto Rico." - You could elaborate on how that person died.
  • "Since 1995, the region was impacted by several tropical cyclones, including Hurricanes Luis and Marilyn in 1995, Hurricanes Bertha and Hortense in 1996, Hurricane Erika in 1997, Hurricane Georges in 1998, and Hurricanes Jose and Lenny in 1999.[20]" - Why is this sentence relevant to the Impact section?
  • "Some trees were destroyed and electrical poles and power lines were downed." - Comma after destroyed.
  • "But most of the island territory only received 3 inches (7.62 mm) of rain." - But is a not-so-good way to start a sentence. Change "but" to "however," and use a semicolon to combine it to the previous sentence.
  • "Another measurement of rain that was nearly as high as that was 12.16 inches (31 mm) near Cayey, though there were unofficial reports of 17 inches (43 mm) of rain in the interior mountains." --> "Additionally, 12.16 inches (31 mm) of precipitation was recorded near Cayey, though there were unofficial reports of 17 inches (43 mm) in the interior mountains of the region."
  • "Three of the five houses were wooden and the other two being constructed out of concrete." - Why is that important?

Good otherwise. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken all other comments on the article up with you in IRC. I don't see anything else wrong with the article, so I'm passing it. It's now my duty to encourage you to review a GAN yourself! =P TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Debby (2000). 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) 22:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Debby_(2000)&oldid=1211223009"