Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2010)

Tropical Storm Colin (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
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

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).

Is this article really needed?

Colin is barely a tropical storm at present and other than minimal tropical storm force winds striking bermuda looks to be a fish storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exectly, wait till after the storm. IMO, this storm is a dud. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. The storm regenerated after decaying into a remnant and was a 60 mph TS, and is currently going to threaten and directly hit Bermuda so in my book, its notable enough to deserve an article. And if it hits Bermuda, then by all means its not a fish. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 20:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie passed over the southern bahamas, went through florida with 40 MPH winds and disrupted the oil spill effort in the gulf and has no article yet this one does though? The current forcast is uncertin and currently Bonnie looks to make a direct hit on Bermuda as a minimal tropical storm, nothing new there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie can be created. It was just no one wanted to and no one was interested. Bonnie is notable enough to have an article, and so is Colin, but in this case, someone created this. I am not opposed to an article to Bonnie if it was done right now. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Bonnie article would be good and I have no problem with this article other than possible notability issues. I will wait for the storm to be over, the only thing that I can see standing out so far is that Colin was twice a tropical storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is definitely premature given the lack of information we have on Colin, but in the long run this should become a perfectly acceptable article. Especially when you consider some of the articles made for last year like Henri and Danny; Colin is already more notable, the only issue is the premature creation of this article. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Colin has just been downgraded into a Tropical depression and is forcasted to have minimal impact on bermuda. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snagged another one. I love doing hurricane reviews, the quality out the gate makes them painless. I've got two reviews in front of this one, so give me a few hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

My first thoughts are that this storm really hasn't done that much. One person died, very far from the storm, due to rip currents. I wouldn't even really consider that a direct death, but I'm fuzzy on the direct/indirect death line. There's also no indication that this produced significant damages. I'd like your opinion as to why this storm merits an article, as opposed to being merged into the 2010 season article.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- This needs a good copyedit. I tried to do it using red text and green text, but it was taking too long. I'll do the CE myself, shortly after I post this.

- To be completely honest, the quality of writing here is poorer than I have become used to seeing in tropical storm articles. It appears to me that you didn't copyedit your own work before submitting it, and the text dosen't flow well. I did an initial pass of the lead, but I'd like to get one of the other hurricane writers to look this over as well. I simply don't understand the terminology well enough, but I can tell that the text, especially in the first paragraph of the Meteorological history section, needs work.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Possible issue

- I can't get any of the webcitation.org pages to open for me. I'll try again later, but I can't pass this until I see the sources.

b. proper citation use:

- See 2a

c. no original research:

- See 2a

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Needs work

- Last sentence is "Further north, waves between 1 and 2 ft (0.30 and 0.61 m) were expected in New England as a result of Colin." - did they pan out? If they did, say that and source it. If they didn't, say that and source it or just remove the whole line. I can't check that source myself (see 2a).

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

Acceptable

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

See my opening comments about the validity of this as a stand alone article. Also see 2a (if you didn't read it above or go to it any of the four times before this that I said "see 2a"). Technically, once 1a, 2a, and 3a are cleared this article would meet GA standards, but I don't see it sticking around as an article in the long term. Your choice as if you want to withdraw and merge or go ahead, I'm just letting you know what I, a non-hurricane writer, thought. Sven Manguard (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- On closer examination, I don't think that I can pass this at this time. There are two issues at play here. First, as stated above, I really don't see this storm as warranting an article. Second, I really don't think that the prose meets GA standards. Now the first can be argued and the second fixed, but right now, it's not looking good. I'm going to drop a line to a few people and see what they think, and I want to hear back from you too, before I make any decisions on closing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the prose is quite poor (no offense TAWX!) for a tropical cyclone article; just fail it. No comment on notability. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't want to do that, but it looks like it needs a total rewrite. Or a merge, but at the very least, it needs to be heavily cleaned up. Feel free to resubmit this when you're ready. As a matter of personal policy, I will not do a GAN on an article I already did a GAN for. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PROMOTED In light of the above, mainly per criteria 1a. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your question, there should be no question of nobility for this article, as it has been discussed before. I'll admit I was probably a little sloppy on this article though, you should find Maria in much better shape. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2010)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Per a conversation with Yqt1001 (talk · contribs) and the fact I am kinda sad this is a GAN, ill do the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical Storm Colin affected the East Coast of the United States and Bermuda in August 2010." boring, suggest re-writing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - There wasn't too much Colin did, but I did replace it with "Tropical Storm Colin was a tropical cyclone that brought squally weather to Bermuda and caused extensive rip currents across the East Coast of the United States in August 2010." TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut back on impact in the lead and merge the two paragraphs. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - A little bit and merged the paragraphs. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The remnant circulation was forecast to possibly regenerate as Colin entered a more favorable environment.[2]" per Richard's GAN, remove. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Removed, tweaked the following sentence. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing just to the north of the northern Leeward Islands, a reconnaissance aircraft went to investigate the system on August 4, but no closed circulation was found." two thinges, I'd change "went to investigate" to "investigate" as it is current form is confusing and wimkilink atmospheric circulation to "closed circulation". Y E ^Pacific

^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - All changed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A few computer models, namely the GFDL and HWRF, predicted that Colin would briefly attain hurricane status.[3]" spell out models. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Continued linking their spelled out models, put abbreviations in parentheses. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the see also, remove the extra space and a link to the Timeline of the 2011 AHS. Thanks. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Chipped and filled in. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is only ref 1 in cite report, while the other NHC refs appear to be in cite web? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - All's a report. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The NHC's advisory archive on Tropical Storm Colin" why is NHC linked? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Now there is no more link. :) TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tropical Storm Colin (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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbs4.com/national/tropical.wave.weather.2.1846130.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4022
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weather.bm/climatereport/climateReport.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8100735/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/05/1404551/surfs-up-this-weekend-thanks-to.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Maryland-man-drowns-in-North-Carolina--100261959.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=12943857

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]