Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Featured Article Candidate: Hurricane Dennis

I've started a WP:FAC on Hurricane Dennis, so we can try to make it a Featured Article. The FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis. It already has gotten a little bit of commenting, and any help is appreciated there. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a lot of minor copyediting. Jdorje 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And Raul654 has now promoted it to Featured Article status. :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured/Good articles

Preliminary idea

There seems to be a lot of time spent on merging or creating new articles. This is fine, but we are pretty much good for now. We should work on existant articles to make them as good as possible. Here's what I mean. Decent articles have potential to become good articles, which can eventually become featured articles. Most storm articles have untouched potential. The following are from 2000-2006. Because it is incomplete and some of it is just my own opinion, feel free to add. Hurricanehink 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles Good articles Decent articles Should be better Needs major work

None yet

I think Wilma needs to be shorter, and the others need some re-organization. Hurricanehink 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Full assessment scheme

If we're going to do this, why don't we just go ahead and identify our good content for Wikipedia 1.0? We could use the assessment system already in place, which would help once m:article validation is turned on... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great. Do it! Jdorje 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Do we need a template for each of these (corresponding to {{hurricane stub}})? If so, would it go on the talk page or the article page? Jdorje 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
We don't need a specific template for this, because we can use {{FA-Class}}, {{A-Class}}, {{B-Class}}, {{Start-Class}} and {{Stub-Class}} in a table.
Contact with WP Cyclones
Article Date Assessment Comments
Hurricane Dennis 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) FA Recently added to FA list
Galveston Hurricane of 1900 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) FA
Hurricane Ivan 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) A
Hurricane Katrina 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) A Currently on WP:AID
Hurricane Rita 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) A Waiting for TCR
2004 Atlantic hurricane season 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) A
2005 Atlantic hurricane season 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) B A-Class once we figure out what to do with daugther articles
Hurricane Charley 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) B
Hurricane Gaston (2004) 16:49, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC) B
And so on... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A-Class is the equivelant of good article status. B-Class is kind of a 'tween thing. At least that's how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I like both ideas. This idea is specific. Let's do this first. I also disagree that Frances needs major work. What's wrong with it? -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 05:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that 2004AHS is A-Class personally. It's a GA -- Hurricane Eric§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A-Class means that they are in the gray area where they could be nominated for FA status and perhaps succeed with a few edits or so. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Probably you're right Eric about 2004AHS...and for Frances the only thing I can see is the "humanity" section...but let's stick to discussion of ideas here and leave discussion of individual articles to the article talk pages. So...I think we do want our own template, because the whole purpose is to divide up the work so we don't have all discussion and tables on one page. We can't have a table with 500 entries in it and have it be useful. Instead we should add {{hurricane class|A}} to the talk page of an article to mark it as an A-Class article; then it'll show up in Category:A-Class tropical cyclone articles, which is a subset of Category:Tropical cyclone article classes. Then you can easily look at the category and find an article that needs improvement. Jdorje 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Frances! I accidentally put a | before I was supposed to. Jdorje, that is an awesome idea. I think we can all agree that a lot of articles need work, and this is the perfect way to do it. Are we going to have every tropical cyclone article, or just the Atlantic Ocean? Also, Cyclone Tracy was a FA. Hurricanehink 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)\

So the categories are FA, Good (A class), Moderate/Decent (B class), Should be better (Start), and Needs Major Work (Stub). Start and stub might be misleading. Needs Major Work could be very disorganized, yet have a lot of information. That could work for now, though. Hurricanehink 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing articles by class

Ok, I have conscripted {{hurricane}} for this purpose. Now do {{hurricane|class=FA}} to mark the article as FA-Class. Jdorje 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Now is this just Atlantic or worldwide? I personally think it should be worldwide. Hurricanehink 23:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's worldwide. Now, the next step is coming up with objective criteria. The first thing I note is that standards have to differ based on the date and, in some cases, basin of the storm. An article about a current-year Atlantic hurricane would be sorely remiss if it did not include a satellite picture of the storm, for instance, but for older hurricanes you'll be very lucky if you can find any kind of picture. Jdorje 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality. Now, let's resist the temptation to inflate the articles quality. We don't want to have to go back later and change all of the criteria because we set them too low and every article is A-class. An A-class article should be really good and complete. Also, because an article was a wikipedia featured article does not guarantee it FA-Class status. FA-Class status needs to be judged on the merit of the current article, and should only be given for an article that is, well, probably the best resource on that topic to be found anywhere. Jdorje 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are so many articles...we should try to count them someday. Anyway, I assessed about 25 of them (older Atlantic hurricanes). For the most part I don't think we have to discuss each article on *this* page, but if there is any disagreement about the assessment we should never hesitate to bring it back to this talk page. We still have to come up with more specific criteria, but for now we can use the basic criteria on the assessment page. Jdorje 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah - and don't assess your own articles! This works out well for me since I have written practically no articles ;-). Jdorje 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
And that sucks for me because it feels like I've written something for each article. I'm the one who always writes a full storm history, then gets bored and writes a fairly small impact. Hurricanehink 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've also contributed some to almost every article. Just don't assess an article if you feel like you can't be objective about it. In your case it could be harder since you have written an insane number of storm histories...but maybe you can still be objective, I dunno. Jdorje 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be hard to be objective, but that's why we have a full team here. I'll rate those I haven't added storm summaries to. On second thought, I'll leave the assesment to others. I don't know the criteria (do we even have one?), and work on other projects. Hurricanehink 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment has a pretty good set of criteria, but we can expand it by adding hurricane-specific ones. For instance, I think a current or future event should always be marked as Start-class. To be A-class, an article about a modern storm needs good pictures: track maps, satellite pictures, impact/aftermath photos. To be B-class, an article about a hurricane needs a good impact section, not just a good storm history. Also, if you assess a certain article, I think you should add a "todo" section to the talk page to give a quick summary of what should be done next for the article. However HurricaneHink, your skills seem to be in finding historical data on these storms. So maybe you should browse the stub and start-class articles and try to work on them. Jdorje 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

<----- Thanks. That's a good idea. I just did that with Danny (1997), and will do that with others so we don't have as many stub or start articles. Hurricanehink 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguations?

Next question: do disambiguation articles (Tropical Storm Carol (disambiguation) get assessed? Jdorje 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No need, IMO. Maybe just a run through eventatually to make sure links are correct, as well as giving a small summary for each one? I dunno. Hurricanehink 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's a question of how much detail those articles should go into. Disambiguation articles are a little more for us than for most topics, since they do cover issues such as impact, retirement, etc., sometimes for storms that are not well covered in other areas (some old storms are only mentioned in the disambiguations). Thus there is a difference in quality - or at least an inconsistency - in some of the dab articles. However I'm not sure whether assessing them with the current system would really help. All we really need to do is make sure they all follow the same format. Jdorje 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now we have Dab-Class, Cat-Class, and Template-Class. These can be used in {{hurricane}} just to keep things a little more organized (otherwise the No-Class category is huge). Jdorje 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

Now, my next comment. I've been going through the storms in Category:Incomplete_hurricane_templates and doing quick assessments. Once these are done, then we can go back and do more in-depth ones, and make sure our criteria are consistent. For instance, right now there are 3 FA-Class, 2 A-Class, and 23 B-Class articles. You can compare the articles in each class and see if the criteria are consistent, or if the articles need to be moved up or down a class. Jdorje 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've assessed many articles, but I'm hesitant to assess anything above a B without discussion here. In fact I just knocked Katrina down to a B (though for other reasons - like many long articles, it suffers from poor overall organization), and maybe I should do the same with Ivan. There are also 3 FA-Class articles, but I don't think they should be guaranteed FA-Class status just because they were featured articles (the FA selectors could have had a moment of weakness, like the WMO did with Hurricane Adele). In short we need a process for discussion of assessments as a team. Moving "up" to an A-Class article should be done only after full agreement. Jdorje 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, featured articles should have FA-Class status, as they went through a thorough examination, and can also be stripped of their status after consensus to do so, so they deserve special examination. As for the rest, I agree that articles should not be moved to A-Class until consensus has been reached about it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What's left is mostly non-Atlantic-basin season articles. I've started assessing these, but I've done so with the same criteria as the Atlantic basin seasons have used. That is, if every storm isn't covered using appropriate section headings, I mark it as a stub. But for the Pacific seasons (especially the typhoon one) this may not be the best thing. Do we really need to have info on all 35 storms that formed in a year if only 5 of them ever affected land? Jdorje 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I changed my methodology midway. If a few storms are covered and reasonable structure is used I put it at start-class. However I didn't go back and fix all the other ones so the assessments are a bit inconsistent now. It probably doesn't matter since the difference between start and stub is pretty small anyway. Jdorje 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Wanted

Currently I have been randomly going through them, but storms like Klaus had so little information that it really needed to be redone soon. Feel free to put up any requests, though I prefer fairly modern ones. Hurricanehink 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Article assessments: Todo

Assessing the articles really helps to show what areas are lacking. While it's fun to argue about how to make the 2005 and 2004 AHS articles into FAs, it's probably more useful to look at the articles that are most in need of work. Currently stubs are listed at Category:Stub-Class_hurricane_articles. This doesn't correspond exactly to wikipedia's definition of stub; I marked some articles as stubs just because they had crucial sections that were only stubs. Regardless, for those looking to do some research and writing this is a good place to begin.

Stubs Todo:

  • Improve all Retired Atlantic hurricanes to at least Start-Class.
  • Improve all AHS articles to at least Start-Class.
  • Improve all (pick your basin) season articles to at least Start-Class.

Now to help us out here, we should really look to get sample articles. A sample Stub-Class, Start-Class, and B-Class old hurricane season article would be good. As it is the formatting is inconsistent - AHS articles in the 1800s use some weird table format that is quite different from the by-storm prose format used by the 1900s seasons. However inclusion of tables is good and an A-class article for an older season would surely mix prose and tables. Jdorje 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Lately I've been mostly assessing articles, but eventually I will get around to improving them too. I'm probably more interested in improving articles from Start->B and B->A though, rather than in the "hard work" of doing research to get the needed info for the storms. Jdorje 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but most of the articles I run into are already assessed, in fact, I don't think I've seen a single one unassessed. If I see one unassessed, but if I see one I will certainly do it. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 18:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Luckily, there's only two (I think) retired hurricanes that are still stubs. I'll try and get around to them today. Hurricanehink 20:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, which ones? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Not all have been assessed; there could be more coming. There are about 220 unassessed articles remaining, most of which are season articles, but I will try to finish them up ASAP. Eric: take a look at Category:Tropical_cyclone_articles_by_quality to see which articles are where. Jdorje 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Now there are three; Lenny, Luis, and Michelle. I found an awesome website with news information for natural disasters dating back to 1981 (really 1983, only one or two further back). This site, located here, has tons of information, and does have Lenny, Luis, and Michelle. Hurricanehink 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Down to one. Luis is the only stub retired article. Hurricanehink 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

<------- Got an idea. Should we include Death charts for hurricanes that killed people in multiple countries? Hurricanehink 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've done that in the past for some storms (Hurricane Gilbert and Hurricane Ivan and 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane IIRC) but it would be nice to make them consistent. You can see in Hurricane Wilma there is a really complicated huge weirdly colored table that a comment says is "the perfect table". Hurricane Katrina also has its own complex table last I checked. I don't necessarily like their tables, but I do think we should decide what the "perfect table" is and then include it for all storms that affected at least 3 locations. Jdorje 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume you saw the death toll table in the Hurricane Luis article. Could something like that work for other articles? The three+ locations ideas is a good idea... otherwise it is too small and useless. Should we make this a project-wide thing? Hurricanehink 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure - the Luis format is good except that there should be a "total" row at the bottom (added now). It's also possible (though I'm not sure if it's better) to use a real "title" instead of making the title the first row (also added to Hurricane Luis). The problem is when you start talking about states as well as countries. 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane shows the same style of table, but with 4 columns. Hurricane Wilma breaks it down further by county, leading to 6 columns, and also uses a different (weird) color scheme. Hurricane Katrina additionally breaks up deaths by type - fortunately it doesn't need to worry about different countries, but it still takes 8 columns. I do like the Wilma format, but I don't like the weird color scheme - I think the tables need to have a consistent look across all articles; perhaps we can use a template for this. Jdorje 06:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
For the totals, I think it should be country or U.S. states, unless the hurricane only affected Mexico or Canada, in which it could be divided by provinces. In other news, all Retired Atlantic ones at least a Start. Should the next goal be bring them up to B status? Hurricanehink 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Working on the season articles will be a monolithic task. To start small it might be less overwhelming to keep working on the retireds, and bring them all up to B. Jdorje 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We should have another project. Re-write storm summaries from 1979 through 1995. A lot of the storms' summaries have not been changed much, if at all, since they were first written about a year ago. The style uses slang in some portions, with vague descriptions in other places. As a rule of thumb, storm summaries, when possible and not tedious, should be as long or longer than the storm picture box. Damage should always be included, and perhaps fish storms that did 100% nothing can be re-iterated by saying no damage or deaths were reported. Hurricanehink 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-Evaluation

Here is a list of articles where changes were made, enough to warrent a change in its grade.

Hurricanehink 15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are B-quality but have problems with the sources that you should fix while the changes are still fresh in your mind. Jdorje 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some of those things don't have sources, and I didn't put them there. I added Elena. Thanks, I see you got that. Hurricanehink 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Added Floyd and Pauline. Hurricanehink 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on Nora, gave it references, expanded the lead, and I'm now looking for more meat for the Impact sections, but it should be at least a B by now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Added a few more. The reason I added Diana is because what's on the page is everything that's available online. By definition, that would qualify it for FA ;) J/k, but I did redo Diana a bit, and would like to know what more needs to be done for B class. I still want every retired cane to be at least B class. Hurricanehink 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Diana is missing a Preparations section, and a bit more of meat in the Impact... I know, I'm having the same problems with Nora... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Diana doesn't have it. I checked probably every single site with the words "Hurricane Diana" "1990" and "Mexico". I also used "Huracan Diana" and got some useful Spanish results, but the fact is, there's nothing on this storm. What's on the article is more than anywhere else on the Web. Hurricanehink 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FA #5?

Well, the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane article is now featured. What should we work on next? Personally, I vote for Floyd, given the amount of information there and the importance of the storm. I'll list all A class articles so we can decide.

  • 1997 Pacific hurricane season- Not historically significant enough yet. The article has some asthetic problems that would be hard to overcome, including storm tracks (too big of pictures creating a lot of empty space) and the tables (is inches of mercury and millibars really necessary?).
  • Hurricane Georges- Way too long and detailed. I know I did most of that, but many of the sections can be cut down some, especially the U.S. While some sections have a lot, some filler is needed between Puerto Rico and Florida's impact section. Pictures and condensed text would help a lot there.
  • Hurricane Iniki- This is a little short, but that's perfect for a storm of this type. The information, IMO, is nice and concise, and covers all grounds well (storm history, preparations, impact, and aftermath). The forming picture is a little too big, and there are still three red links (Subtropical ridge, Coco Palms Resort, and Barbers Point. This might take less work than Floyd, and could ultimately become a FA.
  • Hurricane Ivan- Way too long of storm history, in some places there are too many pictures. Some impact sections have too much information, while others, like Jamaica and Rest of the Caribbean, have too little. There is no organization for the United States impact section. Overall, it could get there someday with some work, but we should concentrate on either Floyd or Iniki, given how little they need.

That's my thinking. Floyd, while fairly long, just needs some touch-ups with the pictures. Hurricanehink 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So much for least amount of work. Floyd is now FA #5! Hurricanehink 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Assessed articles list

All right, I've gone ahead and added the WikiProject's list of A-class articles to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience. Please feel free to add there as we keep adding articles.

On an unrelated note, if you're watching this page, would you mind signing below? I just want to know who actually is working on assessments. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm here. Hurricanehink 13:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I stick my head in every few days. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

FA #6?

Ok, the question now is: which article should go next? I personally think Hurricane Iniki and 1997 Pacific hurricane season are good material for a FAC, although we could also go as well with Hurricane Ivan or Hurricane Gloria. I'd sure like to see them go through Peer review before, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, the big question. It is time for an EPAC FA, and either Iniki or 1997 season could work. We should hold off for Ivan and Gloria until 7, IMO, simply to not have so many Atlantic in a row (Dennis, 1928, then Floyd). For #6, I'm a little biased based on the work I did, but I'm leaning towards Iniki due to the brevity and importance of the article (1997 is important, but has its own unique problems we haven't dealt with yet). So yea, I vote for Iniki. Hurricanehink 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no problem being naturally biased, I would like Nora to be the next FA, but it still has quite a lot of work to be done... :P Also, Iniki has the advantage of being under Peer Review right now, which is an added bonus. That said, if Iniki is chosen, another one has to be sent to PR to replace Iniki. So, if Iniki is chosen, what should be sent to PR? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Good point about PRing. Looking at other A class articles, it's between Gloria, Georges, 1997, Ivan, and David. David's too old and lacking too much (preparation, aftermath, and pictures). Georges is plainly too long, and would require a lot of work. This leaves Gloria, Ivan, and 1997.

  • 1997 Pacific hurricane season- Assuming Iniki will be FA #6, it would be best to have a non-EPAC for #7. Ignoring that, a seasonal FA is something we haven't done yet, and has its own challanges, including the white space between storms, repetitive language, grammar problems, flowerly language (fortunately, tragic loss of life), and big, bulky tables. Not yet for this one.
  • Ivan- Way too long and too much information. The sections would require complete reorganization, a preparations section and an aftermath section, and not so many pictures.
  • Gloria- Again, I'm biased because I wrote much of the content that is there, but I think this could be FA #7. I wasn't thinking that while writing it, but given the work of Jdorje and you, it has potential. Things needed include maybe one more picture, more info in general (it's a little short), and reference fixes.

This is just my opinion, but I think it could happen. Hurricanehink 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that having two consecutive EPAC articles would be an issue, but the issues with the language could be a stop to it. That said, Peer Review would be an excellent place to find advice from "non-hurricane" users, so I would recommend it going there. Outside of that, Gloria is an excellent choice too, so I wouldn't mind either one going there. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Big Four: Gloria, Ivan, Iniki, and Georges. Georges is long and detailed, but that's not inherently a bad thing (Jdorje, pay attention). The main problem with Georges is that it doesn't have enough pictures to compliment its size. Ivan is long but it's incredibly informative. It's my personal favorate but looking at the bigger picture, I think Gloria is the most ready, it needs a peer review though. Ivan needs more info on recovery and the info needs to be more balanced. I think the storm history secton could slim down a tad. The opposite is true of Iniki: it's a little short for an FA but it covers the topic well. It's well written, pictures well placed, flows well, intro is good and plenty of info on preparations and impact. Overall I think Iniki should be FA#6, followed by Gloria as soon as it can finish a peer review, then Ivan close behind. Georges is going to need a little work but should be able to follow Ivan. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okeydoke, Iniki is up for Featured article candidates. Hurricanehink 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get a peer review on Gloria. I think it's a little overdue for that. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What's taking so long on Iniki? Everyone supports it... Hurricanehink 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing. Raul likes to do promotions in batches, or he may be busy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Iniki is now an FA! Hurricanehink 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WPAC FA?

Alright. We have plenty of Atlantic FA's, a Southern Indian FA, and an EPAC storm under peer review. All we need is a FA for the WPAC. Well, we don't need one, but I think we should make this a little project of ours. The main problem is the candidates. Information is fairly scarce for some storms, especially if you want pictures. These 4 are possible ones down the road, IMO.

  • Typhoon Gay (1989)- Upsides include notabilty, existing impact picture, and plenty of room for expansion. Downsides include the name (imagine the front page on the day it is featured) and potential for not enough information
  • Typhoon Pongsona- Upsides include pictures, how costly it was, and potential ease for information (Guam is a U.S. territory). Downsides include lack of areas affected.
  • Typhoon Babs- Upsides include notability and plenty of room for expansion.
  • Typhoon Vera- Upsides include notability and ease of information (lots in JTWC report). Downsides include pictures.

None seem really that good, though. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the West Pacifics are good enough, I'm afraid. In time and with some work, I think Gay should be an FA. It is far and away the best West Pacific storm article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes an FA? You must be joking. I don't see how the formatting could possibly be worse. The picture of Hurricane Ivan overlaps part of the table. The text everywhere except the intro is squished into the side margins. In several places, there are less than 5 words per line. Further down the page, one of the tables overlaps the text. And in the middle of the page, there's this huge white space. Also the table on landfalls isn't really that helpful and a little confusing. On top of that, I don't see where its nomination was discussed. WTF guys? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The formatting isn't the best, but its for featured list, not featured article. The text isn't what's important, rather it is there to help the tables. At least that's what I thought. Hurricanehink 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the formatting is that the images were placed to fill up white space. The problem is, you can't add too much text, because it is a list, and being too detailed would make it ineligible for Featured list status. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It still looks atrocious and is incredibly difficult to read. Those formatting problems need to be addressed. Excuses don't help. Right now, it's a mindless collection of lists with text squashed on the sides and pictures overlapping the information on the tables and tables overlapping important text. I can't see how it meets any of the requirements for FL other than the references. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. It's been fixed. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FA #7?

Three cheers for Iniki! And now who's next? Good candidates include: Hurricane Gloria, currently under peer review; Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Georges, and, excuse me for mentioning it, Hurricane Katrina. Personally, I think Gloria should be next as soon as it finishes peer review (which is when?). Ivan should follow, we should start getting him ready for peer review. Next, I think 'Drew should get it. He's been kind of overlooked. The article is very good. I'm sure it can improve but I doubt there's anything major. Georges should get up sometime in the near future, as should Katrina; an article as immense as the storm. Also, I still think 2004AHS has a lot of potential. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is open-ended, so it could end now, for all intents and purposes. Since Gloria is on the PR queue, I would say it is next. However, after that, I would suggest sending both Ivan and Georges to PR (I wouldn't mind Andrew too, but it has a few minor stylistic features that should be fixed). Lately, the peer reviews haven't been very active, so I think the WikiProject is able to take several at the same time. I wouldn't overlook the 2004 or the 2005 AHS articles, as they're both really good. Katrina should be featured by the time the 2006 AHS starts, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if Georges is ready for PR. Last I checked, Ivan was definately cleaner. See Georges has really long sections that don't flow exceedingly well. I haven't read Andrew thoroughly enough to make as detailed an assessment. Admittedly, I have somewhat of a bias for Ivan, but I still think that Georges needs a bit more work. However, I may have missed something. What's your take on Georges? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
FAC voters do not like trivia, like Georges has. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The trivia section can be easily merged to the impact section. Ivan sounds good, and how about 2005 AHS? But outside of that, have we all agreed to send Gloria to FAC? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What about Claudette eventually? It's now an A-class. FA's don't have to be deadly or very costly hurricanes. Hurricanehink 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, we can send several articles to Peer Review simultaneously if the Peer Reviews are not really giving much discussion. When that happens, it is usually because the article is ready for a FAC. Again, I'd say Gloria now, and decide about PRs as we go. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We all seem to be agreed on at least putting Gloria up for FAC. Let's do that and then we can hash over who next to put up for PR. I personally think Ivan far and away should follow Gloria. Hink, Claudette is a solid A but it'll need to be significantly expanded before it has any hope of being an FA. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just thought I'd bring Claudette up. It will probably remain an A for a while then, given that not much else is out there. Hurricanehink 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's get to work on getting Ivan ready for PR. It needs a section on recovery. I did some research on it and there is a little bit of information out there. I found some stuff on the Panhandle's recovery and some stuff from the Red Cross I think. I can work on it tomorrow but I'll be taking off to the beach on Saturday and won't be back until late next Sunday (April 8). I don't have internet at my beach condo (a good thing) so I won't be able to help next week. I hope you guys won't miss me too badly. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh no. Well, have fun. The Ivan article first just needs a good copyedit, IMO. Why does it have 4 sections for the storm history, for example? That should be condensed greatly. However, given its importance, Ivan should be next, though after some major work. Hurricanehink 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FA #8?

Well, that was fast. Now it is time to decide what to do next. We can try to send/clean up Hurricane Ivan or Hurricane Georges to Peer Review and wait a bit, but we also could send another article to the FA fray... I would say that the best one to send there, on a quality basis only, is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. With the Beta report out, the article has become stable. Everything else needs a bit of work, so I think that article is the one that's the most ready for FAC (and would benefit the least for a Peer Review). We also could send the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms to FLC, as it has gone through PR already. Thoughts? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, very fast! 2005 could work, but there's a discussion going around for the re-instatement of an article for every 2005 storm. That might disrupt it a bit. Ivan isn't bad, but it's very disorganized. Georges would be cool, but it's really long and could use pictures. On the plus side, it would be the 4th FA that I helped a lot on :) I really don't know. Should we get the Tropical Cyclone Collorabation of the Fortnight going and work on something quick? Hurricanehink 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That could also work, but I'm not sure... we're spinning wheels here. I think Tropical cyclone just needs a bit of touching up to do now, after Miss Madeline gave it an overhaul, so that might work for the collaboration. But I'm not sure if the 2005 discussion might cause it to be disrupted... perhaps the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season instead? Eric wanted it for a while now... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Tropical cyclone is that it's 85 kb long, about 30-35 kb too long. The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season is very stable, so that could work. Perhaps that should be PR'ed? Hurricanehink 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Either way, someone beat us to the punch, so I guess it is the 2005 AHS. But we should send another article as well, so the noticeboard isn't empty again. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
How about List of New Jersey hurricanes? Perhaps we could make is a featured list. I just finished converting all of the inline links into footnotes. Arizona hurricanes could also be an FL. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm always in support of something like that. It could use some more pictures, but if necessary I have some pictures of the 1944 hurricane in the book I used as a reference. Hurricanehink 00:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a natural bias against 2005 AHS because of my feelings on the split issue, which I still feel very strongly about. I still say Ivan is at present more deserving. I've never seen length as much of a problem so long as it's within broad limits. Ivan more than qualifies lengthwise in my book. The storm history section could be trimmed (not butchered; trimmed) because it does get a little tedious in places. Also, the addition of a recovery section would at a lot of value. BTW, we are on FA #7 (see above section), not eight. This discussion is best moved up there. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Gloria is now an FA (it lasted only one week in FAC) so we are indeed on 8. Either way, 2005 AHS is too unstable for now, so I'd say Ivan's up for Peer Review. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, all right. I was absent this past week down in my little corner of paradise. Agreed on Ivan but I guess that's redundant of me. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch is almost there, IMO. It needs an aftermath section, but other than that (except possibly Mexico impact) it's almost done. Assuming Ivan is #8, Mitch could be #9. I won't be able to finish Mitch due to me being away on vacation for the next 2 weeks, but someone else can feel free to finish it. Hurricanehink 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've sent Ivan to PR. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2 weeks! Lucky bastard ;). Bang-up job with Mitch. It and Georges are about equal in readiness. How about we put them both up for peer review after Ivan finishes his and hopefully moves on to FAC? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, thanks. Unfortunately, Mitch and Georges don't have an aftermath section... yet. Hint, hint. Hurricanehink 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were on vacation...;). Anyway, I thought Mitch did have an aftermath section, it just needed to be expanded. I clearly remember seeing it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, that message was written before I actually left, and this message is from my grandparent's computer. Mitch does have an aftermath section, but it's already covered in the impact. I am talking about it needing aid from foreign countries, etc. Hurricanehink 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Ivan to get done, what about another FL? The list of 2005 storms is done, so what about the List of New Jersey hurricanes? It seems to be pretty good, in my own biased opinion, and another FL couldn't hurt. Should I put it up for peer review? Hurricanehink 19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure... it's complete, but perhaps a table would be nice. How about Labor Day Hurricane of 1935? It's remarkably complete, and shouldn't need more to get to FA-Class. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That could work. Should we work on this first and PR ASAP, or wait for Ivan and have this be #9? Hurricanehink 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think just send anything right now... Mitch is excellent, but it currently is the TCCOTF... any other ideas? Perhaps ask in the main WikiProject talk page? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, we should decide which one we want so we can add to it. Yea, Mitch is great, but, like Ivan, it needs an aftermath. After the TCCOTF, it should be FA quality. Should we finish Mitch and then PR that? Hurricanehink 01:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Ivan going to FAC soon? I know I still have to post the recovery section. I've had a pretty busy homework schedule so I haven't been able to work on it much. I haven't found any of the actual numbers you were wanting, Tito. Now I'm just trying to make it a bit more neutral and I should be able to post it tomorrow or Friday. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn school work! :) Personally, I don't think the Ivan article is close enough. Ivan still has too many organization problems and still doesn't have an aftermath. If it were to go to FAC, I would have to vote no based on how it is. The storm history should only be 1 section, not 4 subsections. Information there should be condensed and moved elsewhere to flow better. For example, move anything about rain to the impact section- that's why it's there. Possibly remove one of the pictures from the storm history, and maybe move it elsewhere. Maybe there should be a records section. That could include it being the lowest latitude Category 4, Cat. 5 information, and Hydrological Records. More citations are needed, like in the preparations section. How do we know that 500,000 Jamaicans were told to evacuate? Also, should the speculation about Katrina be there? The death table needs to be redone. Like Jdorje said, it should focus on the direct deaths. The table, in my opinion, should go in order of where Ivan struck, not alphabetically. It would go Barbados, Grenada, Tobago, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, then the U.S. states. Eric, you can use some of the Grenada impact section for the aftermath section if you want; there's info about international aid that shouldn't be in the impact. Like I said about the death table, the impact section should go in geographical order. Perhaps start with a Leewards Island section, followed by a Grenada subsection? More info should be found on meteorological information on the islands... I'm sure you can find more on Jamaica. You should add some damage figures as well. The TCR has a lot of information not in the article yet, including damage figures ($1.85 billion in Caymans, $815 million in Grenada) or actual damage (47,000 damaged homes in Jamaica, for example). The USA section should be broken up by state, if possible. There's simply too much to do for Ivan right now. I think we should make Ivan a Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight, or even restart the article on a user page. That way, we can find all of the sources, and it should be easier in general. We should withdraw the peer review, given that no one's seen it other than us, and I think, in my own biased opinion, that we should focus on Mitch. That article has sources for everything, impact broken up by area, and only needs an aftermath section. What does everyone think? Hurricanehink 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, given its completion, I put Hurricane Mitch up for Peer review. Hurricanehink 15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

FA #10

As FAC #9 is currently 2005AHS, we need to decide what to send to FAC as soon as that passes. Ivan is almost ready, Mitch is on Peer review, and Claudette won't really benefit from WP:PR due to its high quality. So, should we send Ivan and Claudette at the same time? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the amount of time and effort, I vote for Mitch, then PR Claudette until Mitch is an FA. I just think that Ivan would require a lot of work for FA status. I hope it's not my natural bias that 3 of the last four FA's I contributed a lot to, and now two candidates of yours I did a lot as well, but I think it would take more work than Mitch or Claudette. Eventually, Tropical cyclone should be featured. That shouldn't take much more... Maybe just some condensing of sections or some sub-pages. Hurricanehink 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to put Mitch up for FAC. Is that alright? Hurricanehink 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Here goes nothing. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Mitch. Hurricanehink 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, should I put Claudette up for PR? Hurricanehink 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mitch is scheduled for the main page on May 28.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC #11

I'm not sure what number it is, but, regardless, it's time to pick out the next FA. We talked about Claudette earlier, there's still Hurricane Ivan that hasn't been changed much, and Tito and Nilfanion are discussing Hurricane Irene (2005) as an experiment for an FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Ivan needs a bit of work still; theres a few citations wanted for a start. Personally I'd favor a shorter storm history and a records (and naming?) section for it too. Either give Irene a go and see how it goes (I think it meets the FA criteria), the feedback would be useful with minor storm articles irrespective of how the nom goes. Or alternatively go with Claudette, that one is ready.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea, agreed on Ivan. I think we should give Irene a shot. You're right. Regardless, it would let us know what is needed for these types of storms, which, in the past, normally wouldn't have gotten articles. If it fails, then perhaps articles for every storm should stay at 2005. If it passes, then, provided articles have the same quality as Irene, we could expand articles for every storm back a little bit, at least to 2002 and possibly further. Anyone opposed to Irene as the next one? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I put Irene up for FAC; however, we should start working on Ivan significantly, as I'd really like it to be next. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have the feeling this one might be much difficult than the rest, so I encourage other editors to keep it on their watchlists and try to address all actionable objections presented. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds fair. I'm not sure if it is ready for FA, but I am very interested in other people's comments on the hurricane. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the nomination of Irene will do what we really wanted, to get a thorough examination from a wider base — which will assist with these articles. Judging from the amount of copyediting, the nom was probably premature, we should have PR'ed it first.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it isn't doing too well, how long should we keep it up before pulling it? Claudette, which is also relatively un-notable, is still ready. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC #12

Irene has got all the useful suggestions it could have got the debate on its FAC is now purely about "can a short article be an FA?" - irrespective of how it goes when it is closed out. It is now the model "minor" storm article. Should we wait for Irene to close out before submitting our next one? Ivan is still some way off but if we wait for Irene to finish it could be ready. Claudette is the obvious candidate, there are others though I guess. Should we start working up Tropical Cyclone to FA standard?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We could instead try for a featured list as we haven't nominated one in a while. The List of New Jersey hurricanes is quite good. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't hurt to chose the next one now. As an article, Claudette sounds good. Storm05 mentioned Percy, as well. Either could work, but I prefer Claudette, as it has more pictures, cite web formatting, and I wrote most of it ;) NJ canes also sounds good, though I'm hugely biased as I first wrote it (though you helped quite a bit too). I don't know, but we should decide soon so we can work on those articles more. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Irene made it! OK, next? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay to get the Cyclone Percy article to FA Class, a track map is needed as well as some minor edits. But so far no one had made a track map of the storm as well as the other recent articles. Thoughts?Storm05 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if there's enough info. There's not even a damage total. It is a solid A class, though the impact section is a little short. More pics would be nice. Maybe after some more work. Claudette is ready, with Cite web formatting, plenty of content for such a storm, and pics. Anyone opposed to Claudette? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer a more notable storm after the "fun" with Irene, but yes Claudette is ready now. Percy is the obvious choice for having a FA from the S Pacific, but its not there yet.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no other notable storm is ready, unless you want to polish up Georges or David. I am in the middle of redoing Tropical Storm Allison. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a lot of information about the impact of Katrina on Mississippi, so adding it to Hurricane Katrina leaves it on FAC shape... we can't get more notable than that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, I forgot about Katrina. Excellent idea, especially if the impact is expanded upon. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
"Forgot about Katrina", ironic given the "May we never forget…" userbox on your page Hink. I think Katrina is close if we summarize Hurricane Katrina effects by region back into the article we will be very close. Theres one expansion request currently (TCR data on TS warnings will cover that).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, well I didn't forget about the storm. It just... slipped my mind ;) Very true on what we have to do. Such an article deserves to be featured. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the chapter starting at page 59 of the Katrina Report can be helpful. But it's... well, long. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the amount of work for Katrina, I picked Claudette for now. If it does succeed, it shouldn't take too much time, maybe two weeks. That should be enough time to get Katrina polished enough for FAC. Katrina is going to take a lot of work from all of us, so, to buy us time, here's Claudette's FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to throw it out there, I don't think Irene deserves to be an FA. However, I'm through with 2005AHS and any articles relating to it so it will remain just my opinion. I remain a strong Ivan-advocate. Unfortunatly I neglected to post my recovery section, something I had planned to do before my Wikibreak. Now since my hard drive crashed, I'll have to wait for it to be recovered before I can post it. And so the headaches continue. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FA discussion #13

(That section heading gets rid of the ambiguity in which one we are on...) Which should we go for next? Hurricane John (1994) is on Peer Review, Hurricane Nora (1997) is close and Cyclone Percy is another choice, only track maps/pics needed I think to those. Hurricane Katrina is finally getting close now, but its not quite there yet. I think Katrina should be there or thereabouts by the time of the next one. I think one of the two East Pacific storms, though I'm not sure which.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. One of the EPAC ones is probably the best bet. Nora has the advantage of having damage and preparations, though is a little long in placs. However, we know that John is about done, given that it didn't do too much. I really don't know. I don't want to face another Irene, but I'm not sure if Nora is ready either. Nora has more pictures, while John has one. No idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly biased in favor of Nora, and there isn't anything out there for the storm now. Either way, I say Katrina is ready for Peer Review (not FAC yet), but it is imperative that it goes through all of the steps. Katrina is probably the WikiProject's most controversial article, it will draw innumerable objections due to the immense size of the impact of the storm. So, when it is nominated for FAC, don't expect it to be easy. As a result, we should have the benefit of Peer Review, to be completely sure it stands up to the rigorous scrutiny of FAC. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Percy has considerable work to be done still, I think, but it could stand to be FAC 14 or 15. Right now, I think John is in better condition than Nora; Nora has some formatting trouble with all of those images. And, unlike Hurricane Irene (2005), John has considerable notability (so we won't get objections about voting to delete at AfD). I, too, may be a bit biased, though, having recently rewritten most of John's article.
Katrina has a ways to go still, but I think once John, Nora and Percy are through, it will finally be ready. I'd also like to see tropical cyclone get featured at some point. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 23:21 UTC
I'm not sure which could be the next FA, but I do think that Hurricane Camille should eventually. Luckily, it was the TCCOFT and TimL and I have done a considerable amount of work to the article. Sadly, it's only a B-class and got rejected for GA class a few days ago. But, maybe later it will succeed. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. We all want to send articles in which we've personally worked on! Perhaps we should send them all at once to swamp the FAC system with cyclones. It's a takeover! :P
Something in which we all agree is that Katrina should be soon. As I said, we really can't afford to skip any steps with that article, so I'm sending it to peer review. It's still a toss-up as to which one to send to FAC to buy more time, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Camille eventually, but it's not that good right now. John looks ready, with Katrina being right after it. Of course, you have to wait until Claudette is done. That shouldn't be too much longer. However, a bombardment would be very fun. :-) Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no rule about having multiple articles closely related as FAC at the same time, right? So if we can't decide, we should just do a bunch. What could be bad? That would mean Nora, Percy, John, and Katrina. And we wouldn't wait for Claudette to finish either... Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no firm rule, but it isn't a good idea, because we would be spreading ourselves too thin. We're trying to stall for time for Katrina to be as good as it can possibly get. By the way, Katrina is on PR now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to go for bombardment - then its easy. Just send all the 2005 fishspinners! I mean Irene shows they can pass... It's a toin coss on which one, so when Claudette is done, someone just pick one of the EPAC storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, don't worry Tito, we would never do that. I still think John should be next. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Time's run out, as Claudette is now a FA. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sweet about Claudette. Alright. Which one now? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Just pick one and do both of these EPAC storms before Katrina. Does the order matter, I don't care?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I nominated Nora. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And now it's featured. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

FA discussion #14

Since Nora is featured now, which one is next? John or Katrina? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

John will likely pass about as easily as Nora did. IMO Katrina is ready, but will have a harder ride than John. However, Katrina is always going to have a rough time, because of its importance. I say lets try Katrina now, I don't think its going to benefit from any more delays - which is why we did Nora then wasn't it? If Katrina gets bogged down submit John in addition after a week or so?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just added an entire section to Katrina which I thought was important... I'd like for others to have a look at it, then if there's nothing wrong, nominate Katrina. If there's something awfully wrong with it, then nominate John. Either way, Katrina will have a harsh ride, due to the obviously-strong opinions on the subject. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, well, I just nominated John before reading this. I'd rather see Katrina get one last look over before its nomination, anyway, and spend a bit more time on peer review (unlike John, it may get comments from outside of the WikiProject). —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 02:49 UTC
Uh... I really should have double-checked my watchlist. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, John should be uneventful, so we can still focus on Katrina. —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 03:50 UTC
Concur, Katrina is qualitatively different from John, why not both at once?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I wasn't expecting Katrina to be the easy one.... John's turning into another Irene..--Nilfanion (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that is a bit funny. John seemed to be the shoe in, while Katrina looked to be difficult. Well, given that they're doing well, I'll open the discussion for the next one. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FA discussion #16

Wow, we're getting pretty high right now. Tito mentioned Hurricane David on the assessment main page. Looking at all the A-classes:

  • 1997 Pacific hurricane season- I know Miss Madeline wants this to be featured eventually, but I have no comment on FA seasonal articles. I'm all for them, but this doesn't quite seem ready, and I wouldn't know what more is needed.
  • 2004 Atlantic hurricane season- I know Eric Brown has wanted this for a while (though he's not really around anymore). This should be FA'd before 1997, though it would need some more seasonal summaries and more work before being FA'd. Plus, there's talk of all articles for 2004, which might result in some changes on the article.
  • Cyclone Percy- I know Storm05 wants this to be featured eventually. However, it seems rather short, and I don't want to go through another Irene or John for a storm that killed no one. Maybe eventually, but it's too short as it is. There's not even a damage total.
  • Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans- This could be the first Katrina sub-article to be featured. IMO, it's just a bit too disorganized to be FA'd. In addition, Katrina's on there now, so we should probably to something different after that.
  • Hurricane David- Huge bias from me, as I rewrote most of it. It could use more damage pictures, preparations, and aftermath, but with some work, this could be the next FAC.
  • Hurricane Georges- Like David, I am biased. More pictures are needed, as well as an aftermath. Parts of the article go into too much detail (sorry!), so it will need to be trimmed down. This could be another candidate.
  • Hurricane Ivan- It's gone through two FAC's and it hasn't passed. The main problem is organization. The impact section relatively short, and should be divided into areas better; Lesser Antilles (with Grenada as a sub-section), Venezuela, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Cuba, then the rest is fine. More aftermath is needed; it's way too short for such a devestating hurricane. I wouldn't recommend it as the next FAC, but eventually with more work.
  • Labor Day Hurricane of 1935- There's no inline sources, which makes me reconsider it's A class. There's also a problem with organization. Not yet, but eventually.

That's it for A classes. As for the eventually pile, I would like to mention Tropical Storm Allison and Hurricane Charley, which I am giving full redos to. They're both under construction, but Allison shouldn't take too much longer. In all, I think we should work on either David or Georges and bring them up to par. Any comments? If you are working on any articles with future intentions for a FA bid, feel free to list them too. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I favor giving the FA production line a time out for a bit after this (not for too long though). I favor in the near future getting 1997 up to spec as it is a good test bed for the E Pacific seasons (without storm articles). 2004 AHS is sub-2005 AHS quality; I'm not going to go into the storms section debate here - I'm referring to the complete absence of a seasonal impact section.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense about 1997PHS, especially since I'm planning on getting Pauline up to Nora-quality sooner than later... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear about Pauline. I tried giving that a redo, but it wasn't as good as expected. Plus, Pauline is the most damaging hurricane in the EPAC, so could use some more love. Nilfanion, good idea. We probably should wait until we can get the next round ready. After all, we've been more or less nonstop with FACs for a long time. On the other hand, Tropical Storm Allison is almost done, so that could work. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The 1997PHS already has two previous unsuccessful FAC nominations. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, the second one failed because it was pulled, it had no objections. I think one change to the article structure would be TD mentions in full as with recent AHS articles (I dislike the "Other Storms", would much rather have chronological order). Apart from that expand the forecast section info (if we can find it?) Not sure what else there is really to do.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea. I hate the other storms section too. Can I start to go through the seasons and move them? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That shouldn't be too hard, and sounds like a good idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that a yes? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, yes, it is a yes. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Allison is done, and I think that is about ready for FAC. The break can come later. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Nominate for FAC (please :))! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I'll do it when Katrina is done, and I'm glad you're excited. Could you look through the article for any possible mistakes? Hurricanehink (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Allison is up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now an FA. Great job, Huricanehink. —Cuiviénen 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical FAC

I'm not advocating this article for FAC but this is more an opinion to see where our opinions are: Is Tropical Storm Lee (2005) a potential FA? If yes why, if not why not?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is it can be - its comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable and while the writing quality could be improved it is improvable. It complies with the MOS and WPTC guidelines, and has images (though I would like a color infobox image). It is of appropriate length.. umm yep. The debate is on "It exemplifies our very best work". My view is if it follows the other criteria it is by definition an example of WPs best work (if not a very long one). The question is should this article have an existence at all? If it should exist then there is no reason it cannot be an FA IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think no, based on the difficulties we faced for Irene. For an even less-notable storm, well, I wouldn't want to be the one nominating it. I still don't think storms without a significant impact section can be higher than GA class (unless there's impact and records), including Irene. Lee might be able to pass, but I'll admit I would vote no for it. You can't have the best of Wikipedia in that short of an article. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seasonal articles

Now we have a fairly clear idea in our minds what makes a storm article each class on the assessment scale (although we disagree on some things). However we are a lot less clear on what the distinctions are for seasonal articles. This is my take on it:

  • To be a Start the article must have some description of every storm. For example 1961 Pacific typhoon season has this to say about Typhoon June: "20 people were killed from heavy rain and mudslides when 90 mph Typhoon June hit southeastern Taiwan on August 6." That is clearly a very poor description of the storm, but if all the seasons storms have that I would say it is a start on the season. However as the article has nothing to say about Olga (not even if it was a typhoon!). That article is clearly a stub to me - major sections (in this case 27 out of 31 storms) are completely unstarted.
  • To be B-class, I think there should be a half-decent section on all storms (except maybe TDs)- by this I mean a couple sentences worth on fishspinners and a bit more on landfalling storms. At least some pictures would be nice if satellite pics are available for that season.
  • GA is somewhere inbetween A and B. Basically more text, linking and pictures.
  • To be A-class the article should have complete entries on every storm, track maps and pictures (where possible). Also the external linking should be good.
  • To pass FAC the article should have more than just the storm summaries. There should be information on seasonal records, impact etc. Basically I mean the additions to 2005AHS compared to 2004AHS - though other formulae could work.

What do people think?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent representation of what we are doing and what we have been doing. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Except of course we haven't been doing that. For the W Pacific we have decent sections on 5 "notable" storms and have it tagged as a start. 1961PTS is a start, though it has no information on the vast majority of its storms in the article (except that they existed and were numbered).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the WPAC, we have been doing this. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And the southern hemisphere for that matter - shall we do a mass downgrade then?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure. If not every storm is mentioned in any season article across Wikipedia, it should be a stub. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The (West and East) Pacific evilness has been done. With the Atlantic back to 1885 I am tempted to do the same if a storm listed in HURDAT is not mentioned. The southern hemisphere I'm going to leave alone for now, because I don't actually know what all the storms were, I think a major reorganization should be done there.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC Discussion

I won't even bother doing the number. We're currently on FAC #17, but we should just talk about the FAC's now. Allison is done, and the spot is open. Esther is currently on Peer Review, but given the low amount of people there, it would be more advantageous to FAC it now. The Esther article looks pretty good, and is probably ready. I also put Henri up for Peer Review, so after Esther's done we could do that. After that, I plan on getting Hurricane Irene (1999) up to FA status, and eventually Typhoon Pongsona as well. Does anyone else have any suggestions in terms of FAC's? --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with Pongsona, it's gonna be a lot of work, but I see you've already found plenty of sites with info. The articles I want to see, in time and with a bit of help, are the 1957 Pacific typhoon season, which finally has a photo, Hurricane Keith, which has already been greatly expanded, Tropical Storm Isabel (1985), Hurricane Debby (2000), Hurricane Camille, Typhoon Chanchu (2006), Typhoon Patsy (1970), and the Storm of October 1804. Yea, it's a long list, I hope it won't be so long later. So far, the closest to FA is Camille, a GA and has gone through peer review, then Isabel, also a GA, and the rest are start class or B's. But to stay on topic, I think the ones hink has on mind are awesome; I've always dreamed of a WPAC FA. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I want to bring a Stub class article all the way to FA, which would coincidentally also be the first WPAC FA as well. Camille is the closest in that list, but is still pretty far away from FAC'ing. 1957 is going to be very hard, if not impossible, to FA. We only have one season FA. One that far back with that little info would be very hard. Back on topic, should we put Esther up now? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go for Esther. I can predict some things now (nbsp's...). A WPAC storm is going to be hard in the long term though, because of the JMA/JTWC nonsense (Pongsona's infobox and history should use JMA data). Oh and the number is important for these, this is FAC discussion #17 not FAC #17, for the section headers if nothing else.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, thanks for the JMA links. The reason I don't consider it important is because this is just a discussion for FAC's. Once Esther is done, assuming it is passed, we can continue the discussion here rather than starting a new topic. This topic also allows for long-range FA's that we would like. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Long-range FAs? Tropical cyclone, definitely. Eye (cyclone) also looks good. Titoxd(?!?) 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Duh, how could we forget tropical cyclone?! The article looks good, but it's missing some sources. As an update, Irene is now done. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Mostly, official definitions of where each RSMC has responsibility. Would it be possible to send that one to be externally peer reviewed by the NHC or someone else with a thorough knowledge of cyclones? Titoxd(?!?) 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Great idea! If they approve of it, then it should be ready for FA'ing. If not, they can still give pointers. However, who should we contact. I wouldn't want to bother someone during hurricane season... Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem... although we are in a low-activity period right now, so I don't know when. I'd love to have that article featured soon, though. Titoxd(?!?) 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Should we just send it now? You're right, it's not that busy now, and with some luck it would be busy for a few weeks. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, but I don't know who to send it to... Titoxd(?!?) 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The email address on the NHC page? I dunno, maybe we should just ask the Greatdr. Of course, we should probably finish getting the sources first. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm putting Irene up. That won't be too much to handle, so Esther should be nominated alongside it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me have a look at Esther first... knowing you, it doesn't need much. Titoxd(?!?) 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, your copyediting is always great. Coredesat did a great job on Esther, so I don't think too much else is needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Irene featured now. Titoxd(?!?) 06:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put Fabian up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

FA#23

Both Irene and Esther have now passed FAC. I know everyone now has their pet article that they want to put through FAC, but let me be the first to say that I don't think we should put another storm that barely merits an article thorugh FAC for a while. Our actions as a WikiProject have been horribly uncoordinated, and some of the most important articles such as Hurricane Wilma and Tropical cyclone sit unattended while articles on barely notable storms get polished off and shipped to FAC because they're easy to do. Our five most recent FACs are John, the two Irenes, Esther and Allison, and of those only also Allison is retired. Please, please, please work on retired or otherwise extremely damaging storms first; our welcome at FAC is growing thin for all of the borderline articles going up there. Thank you.

On another note, I would like to see Hurricane David go up for FAC next, though there are one or two issues (notably images) that still need to be worked out. —Cuiviénen 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "easiest" one to fix is Tropical cyclone by far (already a GA), and it is also the most important, as it is listed on Vital articles. Several editors have complained at one time or another about why that article is not ready to be featured, and the answer is because no one has really gotten around to do so. I usually try to replace {{fact}}s with refs, but I can't do it alone, nor know where to find anything; much more help is needed. In a way, we need to funnel our efforts there, if it were at least for a week, and just do it. Titoxd(?!?) 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should make a concerted effort on tropical cyclone. There are a few obvious tasks I can think of that need doing, not actually in the article. There are the redlinks to the RSMCs. Extratropical cyclone, Mid-latitude cyclone and Warm seclusion all need to be merged together. The other thing I think which would be most useful to do is to create subarticles. The mechanics, structure, movement/track, trends, observation and forecasting sections could (and should) all have articles in their own right. The subarticles in Classifications, Terminology and Naming could also do with some better organisation (for instance the scales article should have a comparison table at the top).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Also I think we should have a Naming of tropical cyclones, not have Lists of tropical cyclone names as the main article for that section. The renaming section is too detailed IMO for the main article, if there was a subarticle it would be clearer.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Cuivienen, you forgot Hurricane Katrina was also featured recently and thats the most significant project FA so far IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the order was Katrina, John, Irene2005, Allison, Irene1999, Esther, so Katrina falls outside of the range I was speaking of. It's true, but we should have more like Katrina and Allison and stop working on storms like Irene2005 and Esther until the more important ones are done. —Cuiviénen 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to get fussy the reverse order has been Esther, Irene '99, Allison, Katrina, John, Nora, Claudette then Irene '05. However, Irene '05 although not actually that recent was the one which generated the worst feelings. I think we should be trying to collaborate on the non-storm articles now, we don't really do that just do our own things.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is List of Delaware hurricanes ready for FLC? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Impressive little assessment department you have here, very nice work! :) --kingboyk 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We try. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it works better than PR for us... --Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality tables

I think most of the regulars here are aware of the existence of my subpage with the massive set of tables. I think it would probably be sensible to move it to a subpage of this article. I think they complement the Mathbot generated tables and are probably better for an at a glance "status of WPTC" check. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead and publish it. It has gone beyond the usefulness of being in a user page, and the project as a whole could definetly use something like that. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Assessment/Archive_1&oldid=1145849283"