Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995)

Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) 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
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
October 24, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the coming hours, and will share my findings and judgment. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
In the first paragraph of Meteorological history a sentence needs to be clarified, "The next day shower activity increased with a tropical _______ and was declared a depression by the afternoon on October 20." Please Fill in the blank. In the same paragraph a sentence states, "Upon do so, the depression had became better organized and then gained a decent outflow." Please fix this, it is impossible to understand. The next paragraph is very confusing and does not flow correctly. For instance what does, "However, this did not happen." mean. What, did not happen? In the last paragraph of Meteorological history does not flow as it should, too many sentences start with "Sebastien", and many sentences can be combined. I have gone ahead and fixed the Preparations and Impact section which was significantly better. I also worked on the lead, but what needs the work is definitely Meteorological history.

B. MoS compliance:
There were some issues, but I fixed them. For the future make sure to check your past tense usage.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I say given the relatively short lived nature of this system the content is adequate, but if this ever goes to WP:FAC I suggest the impact section be expanded.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
See my comments below.

Comments

Overall it is a nice article and adequately covers the subject, but the sentence clarity, and structure issues must be addressed before I can pass it. As you make changes please list them below this comment and I will check them off the list. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed the issues above, and gave it a minor copyedit. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good job making the corrections, im going to pass this article. It's always nice when you can pass a GAN in one day. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done - based on the below discussion it seems a number of these names have been reused, not always in the Atlantic basin. There is certainly no clear consensus to move. It may be better to look at the names individually to assure their uniqueness one-by-one, rather than en masse. fish&karate 13:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These names were all used only once, so far. There's no telling how long it will be until these names get used again. Until then, the year identifiers are not necessary GeicoHen (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one of these names is reused, someone will have to go back and change all the old references to it. And, if most hurricane/typhoon/etc article names have the year number, they all may as well have the year number for clarity and consistency. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Use the shortest unambiguous name. Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why didn't you propose the names that were used once in the EPAC to be moved. Until there is consistency around the world I will likely oppose this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all the above. I was also going to list some of the storms from 2005, but at this rate of this season, I am assuming that we going to be reusing some of those names. But I think it might be a pretty safe bet to move the Greek named storms. In addition, I also propose that the following storms also be considered:

Comment: This current naming convention is based on the guidelines set by WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Specifically, WP:WTC#Naming reads, "the general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year". I do not know what their preference is for this case, so I'm going to post a message on that WikiProject's talk page for input. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent is also if the name was used only once, it shouldn't have the year. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Who will go over all articles concerned and add the year like mentioned by Anthony Appleyard? Also the current convention make not retired storms easy recognisable. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do retired storms need to be easily recognizable? That doesn't make them any more notable than non-retired storms (Juan 85 caused more damage than Elena 85, Bret 93 did more deaths than Cesar 96). Retirement is arbitrary. These naming standards aren't. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance in the sense of consistence. F. ex., when looking into storm categories like Category:Category 1 Atlantic hurricanes you can telly easily which were retired if you need to know that. Another thought: "I don't know the name of the storm, but it was the thrid named storm of 2010" -> look up the category for a storms name starting with C and with 2010 in parenthesis. (I know that this trick won't work for retired storm names.) BTW: Retirement or not is some kind of notability question for itself. If f.ex. Irene has killed 54 people on Haiti only and did nothing else she sureley won't get retired. So she has a, IMO, 60 percent chance to get retired and that mostly because of the flooding in NY and VT. If Irene affected Canada the way it affected the U.S. the name got retired surely. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I disagree that people need to know if storms were retired or not - we have List of retired Atlantic hurricane names for that. Likewise, if they knew it was the third named storm of 2010, they would just go to the 2010 page, since there's no guarantee the 3rd storm would have an article, nor that the person got it right (they may have been thinking of the 4th storm). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have rules for what and how users are allowed to use categories? Do we have, even if only partly, know anything for what categories are commonly used? --Matthiasb (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They won't have to go through "all" the articles to rename them. They'll be renamed one at a time, when and if it becomes necessary. DOSGuy (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll going to volunteer for doing this work some time in the future? I am pretty much sure that this work won't be done. We'll just add to our poor record concerning links on disambiguation pages. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of these names have been used more than once eg: Amy and Colin.Jason Rees (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any other Atlantic tropical cyclones named Amy or Colin.--12george1 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about looking outside of the Atlantic? - the name Amy has been used several times in the WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just assumed there wasn't another tropical cyclone named Amy because no disambiguation existed.--12george1 (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when something like this comes up, we used probably check out this article first: List of named tropical cyclones.--12george1 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, per nominator. HurricaneFan 25 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose Larry, Kendra, Omar, Fred, Amy, and Odette as they have been used more than once. I support the rest.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support all but Amy, Amelia, Christine, Delia, Odette, Fiona, Colin, and Nicholas. The rest shouldn't be controversial. If they're hurricanes, then that means the only ambiguity would be within Atl or EPAC, so, for example, Fred would be fine being only at "Hurricane Fred" (at least until there's another Fred). Larry is iffy, since it was retired as "Cyclone Larry" and that is how it is best known. I think that would be a good one to redirect to TS Larry (2003), and have a dab up top linking to Cyclone Larry. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, names such as Grace, Henri, Gaston, Nicole, Otto, Bret, Jose, Ernesto, and Barry have all been used for multiple storms, but only one hurricane each. --GeicoHen (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Intensity does not matter IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all since the ones on current lists are up for reuse in the future. Joyce and Leslie are up in 2012, so barring a sudden El Nino like 2006 or 2009, it is quite likely they will need to be used again so they are next to have to move back. What about names from Ophelia onward that are likely to be required this year? CrazyC83 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Support all All of the storms mentioned above have only been used once, thus it doesn't really need the year identifiers. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that some of them have been used in other basins? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIts okay, because even if we took out the year identifiers, we could have a disambiguation page showing all the others. I'm more concerned about it being the first time used in a single basin instead of all of them together. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good piont, we always have dab pages to list the storms in the other basins. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all. As long as there is only one storm named Sebastien, then the article should be at just that name. The title Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) wrongly implies that there is more than one storm with that name. If and when there is such a storm, then the title should be changed to include the year so that it then correctly conveys that there is more than one storm with that name. But it's incorrect to convey that now. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. It's a sensible convention to have the year, especially in cases where the name may not have been reused but hasn't been retired either. Disagree that there's any implication that the names have been reused, but it would be good to document this convention to remove any doubt. Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge?

The article was on the bloated side before, not sure how it passed a GA review. I trimmed it down, and I believe it can be easily merged into the season article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as the person who wrote it. It fails the word count test and it kinda stinks. I agree it should not have passed. I was just really happy wehn it passed. If this gets merged, now I can say all my GA's are from the EPAC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]