Talk:Tropical Storm Helene (2000)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTropical Storm Helene (2000) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starTropical Storm Helene (2000) is part of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2012Good article nomineeListed
February 14, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 15, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Tropical Storm Helene of 2000 struck Florida just five days after Hurricane Gordon?
Current status: Good article

Todo[edit]

Good start, but some things are needed. You should mention that operationally the storm was declared extratropical, with links to tropical weather outlooks after it became extratropical and HPC discussions. The whole thing needs a copyedit. Also, where did the $16 million in damage occur? Was it primarily in Florida, Carolinas, ??? Also, are both fatalities direct? I thought automobile-related fatalities were indirect. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When during its lifetime was it operationally declared extratropical? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I remembered incorrectly. The final NHC advisory predicted for the storm to become extratropical, and the HPC dropped it without saying its final status. In the NHC's TWO, they said that tropical cyclone advisories could have been re-initiated, but moved over cooler waters. Note in the Outlooks that the storm was considered a low pressure system, and they said the possibility of it regaining tropical characteristics. That's why I said that. I still think the fact it wasn't carried as a storm after North Carolina operationally should be mentioned. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now what? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should mention that the NHC considered re-instating advisories. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should add the fact that before Bonnie and Charley, Helene and Gordon is the most recent example of two storms hitting Florida in a short amount of time. The source is on the Tropical Storm Bonnie page. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You should use the original source, not sourcing the Bonnie article. You should also mention, per the TWO, that the NHC considered reissuing advisories. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for an original source, but I did write that the NHC considered reissuing advisories
Sorry, I missed the NHC thing. The original source is in the Bonnie article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what now? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend an outside copyedit before putting it up for GA, but it looks good enough for B class, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas for who would do a nice outside copyedit? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tito's usually pretty good with that. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at it, more info is needed, particularly Florida impact. Try and find a damage total. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBSP?[edit]

Any particular reason some articles are using machine-mediated spaces? I ask because this edit added a whole bunch of them, which of course makes it harder to read the code. Captainktainer * Talk 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the Manual of Style, WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement. That is done so that the value and the unit will display on the same line (hence the no-break spaces).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd been looking for that. Now I know not to edit that out when I see it. Captainktainer * Talk 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Helene (2000)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on your review. I generally write notes on a hard copy and then transcribe them, which tends to take a bit, so my full review will probably be posted sometime this weekend. Thanks (in advance) for your patience! Keilana|Parlez ici 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's the review. I've done a fairly thorough copyedit but I've left some suggestions for you below. Feel free to ask questions/dispute a suggestion. Thanks so much for your patience! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • The sentence "Across the region, the rains alleviated drought conditions" could use a "however" at the beginning and may need to be reworded.
    • Tweaked. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better - I changed "although" to "though"; just a pet peeve of mine. Thank you high school English teacher! Keilana|Parlez ici 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological History[edit]

  • The quote from the NHC ("the cyclone [was] on the verge of breaking open into an east-west oriented trough") needs a citation.
    • It's cited already. Everywhere in the article, the citation covers everything up to the previous citation. This is the same for all other citation issues you mentioned. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for clarifying. Everyone uses different conventions, so I just wanted to make sure everything was properly sourced. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 08:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "However, the circulation became better organized and the convection became persistent." is awkward.
  • As is "The storm was small and had an asymmetric wind field, and wind shear displaced the circulation from the deep convection."
  • The quote from Lixion Avila needs a citation.
  • The sentence "Most of the associated thunderstorms were to the north and northeast of the center" makes it choppy and is abrupt.
    • What about it is choppy and/or abrupt? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't see/feel/hear/sense any transition from the idea that Helene was disorganized at that point and the idea that it spawned thunderstorms. Does that make more sense? Keilana|Parlez ici 08:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's further clarification about By 0900 UTC that day, strong wind shear removed all deep convection from the center. To simply, I merged those sentences. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I didn't know that the two were related. You can leave that bit in if you want - it's interesting - but I'd appreciate it if you clarified that the strong wind shear and subsequent lack of deep convection caused Helene to spawn thunderstorms to the north and northeast of the center. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, not quite. The shear pushed the convection from over the top of the center and pushed it toward the north and northeast. Do you get it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "In a 12 hour period, the winds decreased from 70 mph to 40 mph before the storm made landfall near Fort Walton Beach, Florida at 1200 UTC on September 2" is awkward.
  • Saying "hurricane models anticipated restrengthening" doesn't make sense to me.
  • The phrase "However, the agency reported the lack of a trough to cause baroclinic strengthening" is awkward.
  • The wind data from the Outer Banks needs a citation.
  • The sentence "It exited the coastline from Virginia into an area of decreasing wind shear." is awkward.
    • Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's still a little clunky. It feels like "with less wind shear" is just tacked on, maybe phrase it as something like "The storm emerged from the Virginia coast into an area with less wind shear, favorable for strengthening in the western Atlantic." (That's not quite right either, but it's quite late where I live. I can take another look tomorrow, if you'd like.) Keilana|Parlez ici 08:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To simply, I removed "western Atlantic". Is that better? I wanted to emphasize that what caused the weakening in the gulf was gone, which allowed for strengthening. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That helped, I changed it to "The storm emerged from the Virginia coast into an area of less wind shear, where conditions were thus more favorable for strengthening." Does that work? (If not, revert away and we'll figure something else out). Keilana|Parlez ici 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diameter of 140 miles needs a citation.
  • The peak intensity by Nova Scotia needs a citation.
  • The Neptune Olivine pressures need a citation.

Caribbean[edit]

  • The gusts on Guadeloupe need a citation.
  • As does the rainfall data from Antigua.
  • Ditto for the data from Puerto Rico.

United States[edit]

  • The rainfall of 1.08 inches needs a citation.
  • The rainfall of 9.56 inches needs a citation.
  • The record crest of the Sopchoppy River needs a citation.
  • The bit about homes and streets flooded in Florida needs a citation.
  • The information about Wakulla needs a citation.
  • The phrase "a storm tide of generally less than 2 ft" is awkward.
  • A "however" before "The combination of winds and rainfall..." could help.
  • Where did the falling tree wreck the car? Specify.
  • The last paragraph of this section is choppy.

I had no comments for you for the last 2 sections. Nice job!

Thanks, I hope it's better now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from how freakin' long it took me to type it up, this has seriously been the easiest GAN review I've ever done. Thanks for being patient and an awesome editor! Keilana|Parlez ici 08:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you! I figured if you take the time on something I did, I should at least return the favor. :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, and I figure that if you take the time to produce excellent content, I should take the time to review it as thoroughly as possible. It's a nice circle like that! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 17:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to promote this, if that's ok. Nice job! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast. If you need anything, just drop me a line. Good luck at FAC! ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 18:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

flooding in South Carolina[edit]

This article includes the statement: "The rains caused flooding along Highway 47 near Elgin." There are two places named Elgin in South Carolina and I attempted to resolve the disambiguation. Highway 47 is only 6 miles long and it is not near either Elgin. It is near Elloree, SC (verified by the (Wikipedia) article on Highway 47 and by searching google maps). I assume that is where the flooding was. The citation is a newspaper article that refers to Elgin. I assume the newspaper article was wrong. I could only find that this report of flooding along Highway 47 near Elgin came from "the local weather service".

Mb66w (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISSUE RESOLVED (following text copied from User talk:Fyrael):

I see you disambiguated the link to Elgin. I tried to do so a year ago and could not determine which Elgin it was because I could not find Highway 47 near either Elgin. I suspected it wasn't Elgin at all. I put this on the talk page. How did you make your conclusion? MB 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that "Highway 47 near Elgin" is probably incorrect since the highway is supposedly contained within Orangeburg county and neither Elgin is within that county, but that part is a direct quote from the newspaper source. I was actually thinking that the Elgin I picked was in the next county over and maybe they were using an extraordinarily generous definition of "near", but looking again I see that Kershaw doesn't even border Orangeburg. It's hard to know what to do with a situation like this where the source is probably wrong (unless there's actually another Elgin in Orangeburn which Google isn't finding). If you have any better solution, feel free to discard my edit. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of Google mapping just for curiosity's sake and didn't find anything (town, road, whatever) near 47 that's called Elgin. I'm pretty convinced that the newspaper printed the wrong thing and I'm just going to remove that sentence. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ha, you already did it. Very nice. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Just had an Edit Conflict trying to leave this message:) Since the highest rainfall was in Bamberg County, which is adjacent to Orangeburg County, and there was also very high rainfall in Orangeburg County, and Highway 47 is in Orangeburg County, I decided to just drop the mention of Elgin and say "Highway 47 in Orangeburg County". That much agrees with the source. Leaving out something from the source that can't be verified elsewhere should not be a problem. I also note that the source was the National Weather Service, reported by AP - so not local people.MB 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tropical Storm Helene (2000). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Helene_(2000)&oldid=1211244551"