Talk:Hurricane Gaston (2004)

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

Copyedit[edit]

This article needs a full copyedit, with restructuring (to have more than 1 section) and a fair share of grammar/spelling fixes. Jdorje 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of fixing grammar/spelling/other issues. -- RattleMan 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah: also, the majority of the impact section seems to be stolen from the Times Dispatch. In my estimation it would be best to delete the whole impact section and rewrite it from scratch. Basically, none of the writings by this user can be trusted. Jdorje 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about this user, and hopefully rebuild it. Hurricanehink 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cited some of the information that if forgot to cite when I wrote the article Storm05 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually impressed with how extensive this article is. Is a copyedit really nessisary? Perhaps I read it after changes were made but I think that the article is great. Some of the sections could use to be expanded, but other than that, it's a pretty solid article. I'm removing the cleanup notice. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example, the intro does not give the year/season, or the month/date, or link to tropical cyclone. The rest of the writing is...passable. Jdorje 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Date added to intro. What needs to be done to make the writing more than "passable". A still just see a few spotted gramatical errors and typos, but maybe it's me. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number of misspellings and grammatical errors. A lot of the text seems like "spaghetti" in that it is just a disconnected list of facts with little overall narrative thread. Metric units are not widely included. Inline references should be included (via <ref> and <reference/>). Jdorje 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copy edit on this article and im suggesting to upgadge it to B-Class if thats okay. Storm05 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is too short and contains misspellings. — jdorje (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also numerous spelling and tense problems throughout the article. — jdorje (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nearing B Class, because I added more pictures Storm05 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem wasn't too few pictures, and in fact there's probably too many pics right now. The problem was the spelling and grammar problems throughout the article. Hurricanehink 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can never be B-class while it has misspellings in the intro. — jdorje (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ive corrected some spelling and grammar errors and can a "stories of survial" section be included in the article. Storm05 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell you've only made the spelling worse. Please, please, please use a spell checker. Also, "stories of survival" are not encyclopedic. I have my own story of survival (I drove from Savannah to Wilmington through this storm), but it doesn't belong in the article. Millions of people "survived" this storm. — jdorje (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What spell checker?!. i cant find it. Storm05 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's one in Microsoft Word. You can probably download one from the internet somewhere. --Golbez 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.com/search?q=spell+checker — jdorje (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the spell checker and checked and double checked the article and found no spelling errors so this article must be ready to be upgraded to a B. Storm05 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still at least 4 misspellings in the intro. — jdorje (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--------

What is with the obsession of this article? The storm didn't do very much, with the exception of Richmond. There are also too many pictures in the article. Hurricanehink 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurricane Katrina article had a lot of pictures, so why are you saying that this article has too many pictures , I dont understand that. Storm05 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Katrina was also the costliest hurricane U.S. history, whereas Gaston didn't even cause 1% of its damage. Gaston was a very localized event, so why are you so obsessed with this article? Did you go through it? Hurricanehink 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did and I also saw a special on this storm Storm05 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that explains it. Still, you have to be objective. I would love to write a Katrina sized article for any storm that came through my area, but only those that went through it would be interested. If you have Microsoft Word, you might want to try using the spelling and grammar check, no offense. Fixing the many errors would bring this up to B class for sure. Hurricanehink 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the spelling , now its time for this article to be upgraded to B Class. Storm05 13:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. There are places where the information is generalized; people were evacuated, some officials assumed, many computer models, major freshwater flooding. There are too many sections. The unpredictability section could easily go in the preparations, or vice versa. Too many times you use too short of sentences. As Gaston moved inland it dumped very heavy rain over central Virginia. The hardest hit area was Richmond where over 12 inches fell. What is wrong with saying, Upon reaching central Virginia, Gaston dropped torrential precipitation, with Richmond being the area hardest hit wit 12 inches of rain." That is about as long as one of your sentences, yet is much more consise. This is rampant throughout the article, and makes it a little boring to read. Imagine if I wrote like this. I keep using small sentences. This is simple to read. Or.... Imagine if I wrote like this, by using longer sentences that are more interesting to read. There's no need to have such a complex death toll table. Just list the county and the number of deaths. It's almost there, but still needs some work. Hurricanehink 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a B-class article isn't really about good writing, it's more about content. However the structure of this article is just too confused for me to upgrade it. Why is flooding, "close calls", and "deaths" a separate section of the impact? Why is an unpredictability section under the impact? Why is there a "summary" of the aftermath that has nothing to do with the rest of the aftermath sections? I tried to do a little reorganizing but gave up because the content is confusing too. The article doesn't even say where the Chickahominy and James rivers are, so how are we supposed to even know what those sections are talking about? An in the aftermath->summary it says "city officials", but what cities is it talking about? Same in "recovery and criticism", what local governments is it talking about? Finally, please spell-check the rest of the article (not just the intro); devistating isn't any more of a word than devestating is. — jdorje (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Floyd and other articles have structures similar to the Gaston article. Storm05 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The top-level structure is fine. But the secondary structure (section ordering) makes little sense. In some places you order the sections by location (South Carolina/Virginia), and in other places you order them by type of damage (flooding/deaths). — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm05, there is little comparison between Gaston and Katrina. The reason because they had those sections was due to the widespread effects. Gaston was relatively little. Hurricanehink 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to the Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath structure that we've taken to using. Gaston does follow this structure. The problem is in the lower-level structure. Why are there separate sections on "Virginia", "Flooding", and "Close calls"? Didn't the Flooding happen in Virginia? And weren't the close calls caused by flooding? — jdorje (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the flooding happened in Virginia and the close calls were caused by flooding. Storm05 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of some of the unneeded sections. This article is in need of inline sources and some more structure to the impact section. Hurricanehink 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little River reference wouldn't be to the Little River in FL. It would be to Little River Inlet in Little River, SC. The NHC lists the areas of warning for the eastern seaboard from a S to N or W to E direction, so that the directions first in danger of being hit are listed first. So one from Savannah River to Little River Inlet would refer to Little River Inlet, SC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_River_%28Horry_County,_South_Carolina%29. The NHC Tropical Cycle Report on Gaston shows a table (Table 5 - Watch and warning summary for Hurricane Gaston 27, August - 1 September , 2004.) which has the watches and warnings. Since Gaston hit just north of Charleston, they wouldn't have issued a warning for FL on Aug 28 at 3PM EDT, when, as of the day before (Aug 27) Gaston was 130 n miles southeast of Charleston. Granted it was moving westward, but not very quickly, and by this time it was well north of the Little River(s) in FL. There are actually 2 Little Rivers in FL. One empties into Biscayne Bay and the other is a tributary of the Ochlockonee River. I do not think either are used as references of warnings for the NHC. The warnings from past years are listed on the NHC pages. As of 2 PM EDT SAT AUG 28 2004 the NHC advisory stated "A TROPICAL STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT ALONG THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO LITTLE RIVER INLET." (Sorry for the caps, it is how the page on the NHC lists it.) Here is a link to the advisory. [1]WayneyP (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I noticed another inaccuracy as well. The article states "At 0300 UTC the tropical storm watch that was issued from Surf City, North Carolina to Fernandina Beach, Florida was upgraded to a tropical storm warning, and all other tropical storm watches were upgraded to tropical storm warnings." 0300 UTC is 11pm EDT. So a warning issued at 0300 UTC 29 August 2004 would be issued as 1100 EDT 28 August 2004. The advisory according to the NWS NHC advisory page states: "A HURRICANE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO LITTLE RIVER INLET.... ...AT 11 PM EDT...0300Z...A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS ISSUED FOR COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA FROM NORTH OF LITTLE RIVER INLET TO SURF CITY. A TROPICAL STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR COASTAL GEORGIA FROM SOUTH OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA." Rather than what the article states, it should state: "At 0300 UTC the tropical storm watch issued for north of Little River Inlet to Surf City, North Carolina was upgraded to a tropical storm warning. The tropical storm watch issued for coastal Georgia from south of the Savannah River to Fernadina Beach, Florida remained in effect." Tropical Storm Gaston Advisory Number 6 WayneyP (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/pub/al072004.public_a.004.shtml?

Whoops![edit]

Must've forgot to cite the information in the Impact section. Storm05 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this necessary?[edit]

I've read this article and feel that it is very informative, but do we really need such an article?Omni ND 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article is to show the storm's devestating effects on Richmond. Rarely does a storm effect a major city. However, the article does not need to be as long as it is. The effects were fairly localized. Hurricanehink 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

This is very close to B-class. The intro should be expanded to 2 paragraphs, storm history to 3 paragraphs if possible (I know I condensed it but feel free to edit what I did), preparations either needs to be added to greatly or removed (specifics would be great, it says people were evacuated but it doesn't say how many), impact should be expanded in South Carolina and North Carolina, Virginia's section needs a complete re-organization, move unpredictability to somewhere else, and shorten aftermath. The article size should be proportionate to the importance of the article. In fact, we should probably have some sort of formula for the upper bound of an article. There is such a thing as too much information. Long quotes should be avoided, too many sub-sections should be avoided, and some of the pictures should be removed. The storm wasn't that terribly notable, and 14 pictures for a storm like this is pretty useless. Finally, what is needed for B class is inline references. Everything sourced should use a proper format, demonstrated like this: <refname="something">[www.link.com Summary of the link]</ref>, but with a space between ref and name. Hurricanehink 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion but heres my opinon on this article--
Damage Pictures-Keep-except the landslide picture which looks totally awful (the colors look distorted) keep the rest.
Peparations-Keep-some storms with a separate article should have a peparations section.
North Carolina and South Carolina sections expaned-big yes- if info found.
Virginia impact-Undecided but weak keep this is far as the impact in Virginia goes.
Format-weak agree-the <ref></ref> things keep acting weird like saying cite 3 error or something.

Storm05 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using ref/reference tags shouldn't be needed for B-class. The article is probably B-class now just based on content, but I agree with hink on all the problems that it still has. — jdorje (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Too many pictures[edit]

I think this article looks poorly organized becaused there are a lot of pictures in an article that deserves more text.juan andrés 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think more text is needed. There may be slightly too many pictures (like 1 too many) but a bigger problem is just picture and section layout. Moving things around could fix most of the problems. — jdorje (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are just a few too many pictures. I don't like it when there are pictures on the left side and the right side at the same time. It can be a distraction and throw-off to some people on some browsers. We could take out one or two pictures of automobile damage and maybe the one of the tree damage or the landslide. —BazookaJoe 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the images as copyvios. Can someone reassess please?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a B class. While there are some unsourced statements, the article is, in general, informative. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWS reports[edit]

These should probably be used in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Gaston (2004). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 03:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Gaston (2004). 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2018[edit]

Hurricane Gaston redirects here, so this article should be Hurricane Gaston rather than Hurricane Gaston (2004). It's also the only storm named Gaston with an article. CooperScience (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for virtually same reasons as before. I really think you should cool it with the constant RMs as most of them don’t really even hold enough weight to support them. In this case, Gaston 2004 doesn’t really hold the primary topic, since Gaston 2010 was also an interesting storm, plus the 2016 incarnation was much stronger then this one. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those storms made landfall, and as we see with storms like Allison (2001) and Karl (2010), effects, not strength, matters. And this is the last RM I am doing for a while. Although I do agree with you on the rate of RMs. I will make it less frequent (although I said this is the last one I will do for a while). CooperScience (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: The 2004 has the most serious land impact among the three of them, but may not be a primary topic. --B dash (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above but someone should fix that Hurricane Gaston redirect thing that likely pre-dates the 2016 major. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not a primary topic, then I would suggest that the redirect be changed. CooperScience (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Gaston_(2004)&oldid=1211224990"