Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Josephine (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTropical Storm Josephine (2008) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Merge?

[edit]

As far as I can tell, it's a copy and paste of the season article. As the storm is no immediate threat to land, either merge it or expand it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand It is a named storm and is thus notable. --Winger84 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the sandbox. It does not warrant an article right now as it is basically a stub and is many days from land, but the sandbox should be there. There isn't much available operationally to expand this. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we might as well keep it... if its gonna go back to the sandbox... and then come back again Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Public Advisory #2 states that it is expected to strengthen into a hurricane within the next day or two, so that's something to consider, as well. --Winger84 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well make it a article then! --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see a need for the article, but I don't the need in trying to prevent the article from being made; that is counter-productive, as the effort to prevent the article could be used to develop the article. The storm looks like it'll be around for a while, after all. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, an effort should be made to expand the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 1) it is off no imediate threat to land 2) This looks like its going to be a fish spinner in which case even if it becomes a Hurricane it needs to be merged back into the atlantic page
Well, while I still push for a merge right now, it looks like it might affect land at some point. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a named storm, folks. Yes, it's quite a ways out there at the moment. But, even in its current position, it is still affecting land, the Cape Verde Islands. --Winger84 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that being a named storm doesn't make it inherently notable. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article should have been published is a different issue from whether the article should be "unpublished." While it is okay to debate the first one, it seems silly to remove an already existing article, push it back to a sandbox, and then re-publish it. I'd !vote against a merge. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expanding the article now, the into is roughly a paragraph long and the storm history is nearing a third paragraph. I'll save it once it's up to date. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom

[edit]

This isn't a GA review. However, I strongly suggest holding off the nom until a few days from now, when the storm is no longer an entity. It is still a remnant low, and there is a possibility it could regenerate. Plus, as JC said, any CV impact? Hint: the public advisories have something. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I found was a little rain, no waves. 3 inches at the most. Can't find anything else. I've been looking for the past couple days for anything on it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has a decent chance at regenerating. Hence it should remain at Current-class until things become clearer. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine not done?

[edit]

This storm wont give up. Global models are picking up on Josephine again, and this time showing regeneration. But guess where the regeneration is forecast. You probably figured it out...Haiti. Forecast shows the regenerated Josephine intensifying while moving northward just offshore Hispanola. The regeneration starts in three days near Puerto rico, taking a Jeanne like track. [1]. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just on NOAA's website, and learned that the storm has indeed regenerated, being upgraded from a Tropical Disturbance o a Tropical Depression.:( Perhaps the article should be updated to cover this?--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no tropical depression yet... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source?--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NHC; there's nothing out there except for Ike and a low chance of development associated with Josephine's remnants. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHC is showing (i think) a different system now, something absorbed the remnants of Josephine so it's a new low. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Three inches of rain"?

[edit]

The source predicted three inches of rain. We need a source saying that the rain actually fell. I suggest trying the weather histories at wunderground. Plasticup T/C 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found a source on wunderground. It only gave sporadic reports but it had the daily rainfall. It showed 0.55 inches for the day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you should hold off on the now-GA nomination to update the SH. Right now it says regeneration is still possible. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Josephine (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Will review soon!--Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Written

  1. a (prose): b (MoS):

Factually Accurate

  1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. I Neutral point of view.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. Stability
    No edit wars etc.:
  4. 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):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article is well written and very detailed for a storm that hit nothing and did nothing! --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1800 edits!!!' 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ELena85, are you going to complete the review by listing the article as a GA, removing it from WP:GAN, and updating the count? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Josephine (2008)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • "By the late night hours, the center of Josephine was almost completely exposed and only a stretched burst of convection near the center as the strong wind shear continued to cause Josephine to weaken." I think there might be something missing in this sentence, about the stretched burst of convection, because it's really not making sense to me.
    • "The weakening trend continued through the afternoon as Josephine continued to be affected by strong southerly shear." Can you find some way to not use "continued" twice in the same sentence?
    • "Finally, on September 9, wind shear and dry air led to the demise of Josephine. However, on September 10, Josephine redeveloped..." If something has had its demise, it is dead. Therefore, it cannot redevelop (unless you're in one of those freaky sci-fi movies with the walking dead *grin*). Please reword.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Current ref 19 deadlinks.
  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:

There are just a few small prose issues and one deadlinking ref, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with these concerns. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized when I went to transclude the review page that there was already a GA review at GA1. So, apparently a GA review was completed, but not transcluded or the process completed. Therefore, I am going to ask that my comments be resolved, and then I will complete the GA process. If you have an issue with this, please let me know. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's done, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thanks for stepping in, Julian. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Julian, sorry I didn't get to this article before. I was busy and forgot about this, I just fixed the few things that weren't changed from before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Glad I could help! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nice smiley. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that one's pretty famous. You can use use User:Juliancolton/Faces as a template, as in {{subst:User:Juliancolton/Faces|sad}}. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known, I would not have supported it. Meteorological history is all we have and all we're going to get. You can make that as extensive as you want, but it still won't give the kind of balance articles on a more notable storm can give. I have always had a personal preference for notability. I believe it is close to a nessessity in subpage creation. Keep in mind also that all meteorological history on any 2008 storm right now is subject to change. What we have now is just what was determined opperationally. That information can change in post analysis and often does. I only quit pressing this issue because I had no support and creation of articles on meaningless storms became accepted practice. I never have agreed with it, though I have narrowed my definition of "meaningless". -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for reassessment?

[edit]

It's a GA? There is stilla couple of error I found, (Josepine, foretast). HurricaneSpin (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article against the TCR

[edit]

It appears that the TCR is not used for any of the sources of this article, and that the article passed GA well before the TCR was issued. If there are conflicts between the TCR and this article, it (along with the above comment) could lead to GAR. Regardless, the TCR is a more primary reference and should be used within this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a GA? There is still a couple of error I found, (Josepine, foretast). HurricaneSpin (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tropical Storm Josephine (2008)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Impact. Any waves in the Cape Verde islands? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

[edit]
MERGED
Consensus to merge, merged. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This storm is literally Tropical Storm Rene (2020), which was merged. This had even less impact and just because it was a named storm doesn't mean it's notable.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Josephine_(2008)&oldid=1137269218"