Jump to content

Talk:Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEffects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 23, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
August 9, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 7, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama included $127 million dollars (2005 USD) in damage and three injuries?
Current status: Delisted good article

Todo

[edit]

Somewhere in the article, it needs to mention where, and with sources, for the strongest winds in the state caused by Dennis. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, but I guess it wasn't worded correctly. See if it's any better now. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nowhere in the article is there a mention of 80 mph, or even anything about sustained winds. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest winds occurred in Escambia County, where gusts surpassed 70 mph (110 km/h), leaving numerous structures damaged as Dennis tracked through the western half of the county.[13] Wind gusts surpassed 70 mph.... NCDC says peak winds were estimated at 70-80, so what I have is fine. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is talking about wind gusts. The infobox says sustained winds. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you're saying. I can't find a peak sustained wind, so I just got rid of the infobox. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q

A Yes, I always like to receive feedback on my writing of articles.

Q

A I don't do a large amount of writing outside of Wikipedia, and if I do, it's mostly school-related.

Q

A My writing style has changed greatly since I joined the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. As I continue to read the many FAs within the project and write my own articles, I feel that my writing style is progressively improving. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I notice there is a request for assistance from the League of Copyeditors. The writing is OK, but I'd like it to be better. There are many redundancies in the impact section. IMO, it feels really disorganized. The impact goes county by county, sentence by sentence, with many sentences starting out like "In X County". Since I'm not sure where else it should go, I'll put it here. The word percent should use the symbol. Double check your Wikilinks, for places where you do and do not need it. For example, in the first sentence of the preps, it should be stated where those locations are, since neither are in Alabama.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Pretty much what I said above. Also, I have concerns that only three sources in the article are non-government sources. Surely there are others, which would provide a better variety.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Due to the writing issues, I put the article on hold. You will have seven days to address the aforementioned problems. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I removed a bunch of the redundancy and gave it a good copyedit. Please let me know if you still think it needs work. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, wouldn't a bunch of government sources be more of a RS than a bunch of blogs or local newspapers? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still spot several redundancies. $4 million dollars (2005 USD) is a rather minor one, but I'm more referring to how the impact section tells the same info in each county. Most counties experienced downed trees and power outages, so I don't see a need to say, "In X county, the winds caused power outages, minor roof damage, and downed trees", or in a different order. That also ties into the sources. Keep in mind that government sources are not the only reliable sources, and newspaper reports are just as reliable when talking about impact. You say the hurricane caused over $100 million in damage, but you don't go into detail of what that damage included. Since in most counties you wrote that the damage was minor, does that mean that most of the damage occurred in Escambia and Monroe counties? The image caption in the impact section describes a house that was completely destroyed by Dennis. First, completely destroyed is redundant, since just destroyed implies the same thing. More importantly, there is not a single reference elsewhere in the article to a destroyed home. I'm leaning toward failing this GAN, on the basis of comprehensiveness, but I'll give you the seven days from when I assessed the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If I removed the specific damage by county, there would be nothing left. I could reply to every one of those statements, but in short: this is GA, not FA. You are sounding like you are reviewing an FA. The article is comprehensive enough for GA, which is what I am aiming for at the moment. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My objections remain, several of which are rather minor but still need addressing. The "specific damage by county" is fine, but in the article, that "specific damage" is pretty much the same thing in each county. I want to see some more specific info, such as houses destroyed (there was at least one destroyed house, according to you), and more detailed damage for the more heavily affected areas (describe how the $100 million in damage totaled up). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added all of the information I could find. That's how I write. I'm only finished when all the information there is has been used. If any source has damage information, it's in there, so I don't understand how much more you want. You tell me that I shouldn't mention every $4-5 million dollars in damage, but you ask how $100 million totaled up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy it for a minute that If any source has damage information, it's in there. After searching for about 10 seconds, I found a NWS report that mentioned several instances of flooding, and this one said major flash flooding occurred; the article only contains one brief, passing mention of flooding. Such an important fact should have arisen in such a detailed search, which is why the article is not comprehensive. Furthermore, I said that you should not mention every single county in which the storm downed trees or power lines. Obviously, if damage was greater in a specific area, and you have a damage total, that should be included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you want me to keep redundancy to a minimum, so why say "Flooding occurred" a million different ways? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you only say it one way, which is flooding added to the damage. The fact that major flash flooding occurred is sort of a major detail that warrants some details. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given my Wikibreak, I suggest you seek a second opinion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first glance, I have a problem with storm history being in the lead and not being further down the article. Last I checked, no unique information is supposed to lie within the lead of an article. I'd add it as the first section, with a main article tag back to Hurricane Dennis. I can't give it a thorough look now...perhaps later today I can. Thegreatdr (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, there's not supposed to be unique information in the lead unless it is referenced, which it is. I just kind of based that format off of the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in X series. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forced me to look up the wikipedia guidance on the subject, which is a good thing. According to my interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Introductions, unless it is relevant to the article at hand, detailed information should be in the body of an article, not the lead. To me, that says that storm history should lie outside the lead and within the general article, with the most important information regarding the storm history (e.g. one line like "Hurricane Dennis was a tropical cyclone which stuck Somewhere in the Panhandle, Florida on July 10, 2005, before moving into Alabama later that day as a minimal hurricane") that is relevant to the article left in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, per your suggestion, I moved the storm history to the body of the article and just left a sentence of it in the lead. I'm just concerned that the lead is too short now. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about length of the lead, which should only be 1-2 paragraphs for an article this length according to Wikipedia:Lead_section (if you discard the length of the reference section), talk about the extent of hurricane and tropical storm-force winds into the state. That added line could allow you to break the lead into 2 paragraphs. The lead is meant to be concise. Let me take a look at the rest of the article now. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the rest of the article, and can't find anything objectionable in the prose. It looks like you dedicate enough space to rainfall/flooding. I know hink mentioned trying to find monetary detail for all sources of damage, but it appears you've pulled all possible information from NCDC (whose individual entries only total $4 million, though some do not have damage estimates), and if it's not there, I wouldn't know where you'd be able to find that information. You've otherwise appeared to satisfy his comments. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Yea, I've tried to find more information on damage, but I don't think there's much more out there. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless hink wants more opinions, this should pass. I'm leaving it up to him, since he's the original reviewer. I left a comment on his talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He said both on Wikipedia and on IRC that he wanted someone else to do it, so I doubt he will want to. I'll ask him again, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He shouldn't have left this article on hold then if he did not intend to come back and pass/fail it. It's been on hold much longer than it should have been, I guess since a second reviewer was sought. I know when you gave a second opinion on an article I was reviewing, you still left it up to me, the original reviewer, to pass/fail it. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--Well, you were still the active reviewer, so if there's a person reviewing an article it really isn't up to me to decide if it gets passed/failed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the tag both on top of this page and within the GA page to be consistent with a second opinion and remove the hold. It only sounds like I can advise passage, which I do. According to his activity log, Hink's been active on here around 20z each day, so we'll get his response this afternoon. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that this morning ;) The reason I chose not to assess it further is that I felt I could no longer be unbiased. However, as you agree it should pass, I passed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_Hurricane_Dennis_in_Alabama&oldid=1239510505"