Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Depression Five (2010)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTropical Depression Five (2010) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2010Articles for deletionKept
January 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Merge to 2010 Hurricane season

[edit]

I think I can safely say that an individual Tropical Depression never warrants its own article. Dondegroovily (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. It all depends on what happens as a result of the depression. This one resulted in enough media attention and affected several states, thus allowing it to have an article. It's all a matter of opinion with every article to be honest though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least eight tropical depressions with their own article. It's no more or less noteworthy than TD 10 in 2007, which has its own article. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also; this article is well written and contains a lot of information; too much to merge into the season article without losing some of the content. — Iune(talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I think I can safely say that an individual Tropical Depression never warrants its own article. " - No you cant - take Tropical Depression 04F (2009) 2008-09 for example it turned out to be one of Fiji's worst natural disasters and thus deserves an article despite it being a Tropical Depression.Jason Rees (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an individual TD never warrants an article is just... incorrect. TD's have impact too, and this one did. Not all hurricanes are notable, and not all depressions are non-notable. Darren23Edits|Mail 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This warrants an article, however someone should write an articlebfor hurricane Danielle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.199.224 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I went too far on my first statement. But I do think that THIS particular depression doesn't warrant its own article. The only reported deaths are due to heart attacks in rip currents - something that happens every day when there aren't depressions around. The info on delays caused to the Deepwater Horizon repair probably belong on the Deepwater Horizon article. I would guess that content is already there, in fact. So, I'm sticking to my guns on this particular depression. BTW, I don't think #10 of 2007 warrants an article either. Dondegroovily (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for the record, I didn't place the deletion tag, just a notability one. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We (WPTC) are aware that you didnt place the delete tag, however i think it may be notable because of the track it took. No other storm has taken such a path over Louisiana, southward through Alabama, and very nearly reformed in the Gulf of Mexico.Jason Rees (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that you mention it, the track is kinda unusual. That's why I tagged notability. Put that in the article and cite it, show that it is notable. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i will let Hurricanehink sort that out since he knows the Atlantic basin better than i do.Jason Rees (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is merged, so should every other tropical cyclone article with minimal effects on land. I wouldn't mind if that was the case (since we admittedly spend a lot of time on menial tropical cyclones), but such a decision should be project-wide, not on a case-by-case. Additionally, it would affect several featured articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no harm in making articles on most tropical cyclones. If someone has the time to do it great, if they don't oh well. TCs are one time events, there will never be another TD 5 in 2010... I know that sounds like lame reasoning but isn't that one of the key reasons Wikipedia exists; to cover unique and one time events thoroughly. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfall graphics coming online

[edit]

By 1615z, the rainfall graphics for this system should be online. They've been recently uploaded. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up DR, I've added it into the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. Crazy track! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Damage (NCDC)

[edit]

NCDC reports for August have been released. Instead of spamming the article and wasting time, I've compiled the links here for damage reports in relation to the depression. Some of the reports do not note the system; however, it was the only low pressure area in the region which could cause the impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Total
  • $103,797,000
  • Two Fatalities
  • Three Injuries
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Tennessee
Texas

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Five (2010)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this soon. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, andhere for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice,fiction, and lists):
    See below for comments.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]
  1. The fifth depression of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, its precursor was from a non-tropical trough east of Florida, and on August 10 it developed in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico. — Do you think maybe this could be split into two separate sentences? → The fifth tropical depression of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, its precursor was from a non-tropical trough east of Florida. Initially disorganized and embedded within an environment unconducive for tropical cyclogenesis, the disturbance moved westward, and upon entering an area of lower wind shear, was classified as a tropical depression August 10 or something like that.
    Split. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dissipating the next day, a remnant circulation later moved over Louisiana and Mississippi, producing heavy rainfall and causing flooding. — Dissipating the following day, a remnant circulation later moved over Louisiana and Mississippi, producing heavy rainfall which subsequently led to flooding.
    I changed the wording. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

[edit]
  1. The system had disorganized convection, or thunderstorms, and moved generally southwestward after drifting against the Gulf Stream. — Being nit-picky here, but maybe substitute the commas for en dashes?
    Yea, that works. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By late August 9, the low reached the southeastern Gulf of Mexico, and the National Hurricane Center (NHC) noted a medium chance for tropical orsubtropical development, due to the anticipated decrease in wind shear. — Change "due to the anticipated..." to "due to an anticipated...".
    K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Easterly wind shear was forecast, but the NHC anticipated the depression strengthening to 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) before making landfall in Louisiana. — Can you forecast wind shear?
    Yes you can. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Despite the presence of unfavorable easterly wind shear, the NHC anticipated the depression to strengthen into a 45 mph (75 km/h) tropical storm prior to making landfall on the Louisiana coastline. (Make sure all units are rounded to the nearest five)
  4. The circulation became difficult to locate; however, conditions favored the redevelopment of the thunderstorms. — "of the thunderstorms." → "thunderstorm activity".
  5. As it continued to the northwest, the circulation remained broad and disorganized, and the convection remained minimal. — Remove "the" before "convection"?
  6. The remnants of Tropical Depression Five moved ashore on Louisiana on August 12, by which time the circulation became better defined. — "became better defined" → "had become".
  7. Early on August 17, the system became disorganized, and it dissipated after it moved onshore southern Mississippi without redevelopment. — Early on August 17, the system became disorganized, and dissipated after moving the southern Mississippi coastline without any redevelopment.

Preparations and impact

[edit]
  1. Before becoming a tropical cyclone, the system dropped locally heavy rainfall in portions of southern Florida. — "Before" → "Prior to"
  2. Palm Beach International Airport recorded 2.25 inches (5.7 cm) on August 8, a record for the date. — Is there a source for this?
    Yea, it's already cited. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On issuing the first advisory on Tropical Depression Five, the NHC issued a tropical storm warning from Destin, Florida to Intracoastal City, Louisiana, including Lake Pontchartrain and New Orleans. — "On" → "Upon"? :P

Other

[edit]

The references look to be a bit of a problem. All Tropical Weather Outlook/Discussions that you used in the article...their links have expired. Try replacing them.

Summary

[edit]

Overall, nice article. Fix these minor issues I have with the article, and I'll pass it. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed/responded to all of the above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tropical Depression Five (2010). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Depression_Five_(2010)&oldid=1211231276"