Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

GA Review
The article is very well written and quite an interesting read. I believe it meets the Good Article criteria with one major exception. The 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' has no externally verifiable sources whatsoever. It's sole "source", is a wikilink to a subpage of the article's talk page, which outlines calculations that were done, apparently by the wikipedia author him/herself. This unfortunately is original research, and goes against wikipedia's policy, as well as the Good Article criteria. Valid external sources need to be added for this information, as well as for the second paragraph which talks about the calculated average in comparison to other hurricane seasons. The article cannot be passed until this is resolved.

There's another manual of style issue as well, though minor. The date wikilinking is incorrect. According to the manual of style, only full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked, so as to work properly with user's individual date preference settings. Single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked. I don't think there's any single years, but there are many month/day combinations wikilinked throughout the article that should be resolved.

Other than these two issues (one major and one minor), the article is in good shape and can be promoted to GA status once they are resolved. I'll place this article on hold in the meantime. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The on hold time has elapsed, and the concerns were not addressed. As a matter of fact, an editor removed the OR tag that I added to the ACE section, indicating that there is no desire to resolve this issue. The manual of style issues were also not addressed. The article is now being failed at WP:GAN, primarily on account of WP:OR issues and manual of style issues.


 * I really hate being a hard ass here, but WP:OR is pretty serious, and a major policy (not a guideline) of wikipedia. I can't pass an article with original research in it, and citing a subpage of the article's own talk page with no sources on it of how these calculations are done or used and accepted, is not acceptable for verification. Other than this, the article is quite good, and could very well pass. Dr. Cash 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeta
Does zeta really need it's own section? I plan on bringing this to PR by the end of the month, and don't think it does. Juliancolton (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read up, and try not to open a can of worms. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A can of worms? Juliancolton (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion was already put on WP:LAME, so I don't want you to open up a can of worms by discussing it to death again. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. And I believe that I could try GAC again, as I have fixed the source for that ACE. Juliancolton (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article assessment
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

--♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

GA
This was just nominated for GA again, but the WP:OR issue with the 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' still remains. The source for this is not a valid source -- it's a talk page to a wikipedia article, for calculations that were done. There needs to be a reliable source for this independent of this article. Without it, this is clearly original research, and the article cannot pass GA with original research, per WP:WIAGA. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done Juliancolton (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some slight inconsistencies between the source and what's in the article, which means the ACE table was clearly not from that source. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? I used a NHC source, and I changed the article to what the NHC says tha ACE was. Juliancolton (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, citing the best track doesn't list any mention of the ACE for each storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, for lack of a good source, should I kill the ACE section completely? Juliancolton (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see where the ACE is in the source, which seems ok. But the numbers that you're providing in the wikitable do not all agree with the numbers in the source; several agree, but several don't, and you're not rounding correctly. Plus, you have data for an unnamed storm and no data for Isaac.

Also, you should have a source on the text paragraph in the ACE section, defining what it is you're talking about, in addition to the table. The citation should preferably be in inline format, so that it appears in the 'references' section. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Juliancolton (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The original numbers in the wikitables are correct. The National Hurricane Center issues a report on every storm after it is over.  That is where the official numbers come from.  The correct numbers start here.---CWY2190TC 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think because the ACE calculations in that source come from the TCRs it is fine to use that one. Juliancolton (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The numbers in the article still do not agree with the official, NOAA source. I don't care about the wikipedia "source" -- that's original research, and should be deleted from wikipedia. Only use the official sources here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then delete the table because that site is using incorrect data. ---CWY2190TC 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the ACE calcs page cleary cites the TCRs as sources. Juliancolton (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It really all boils down to what is a reliable source. What source is a reader more inclined to trust? (a) data that is published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency, and the official authority on such things, or (b) a talk page in wikipedia containing calculations that were done by a member of the community, of which I have no idea who you are and what your credentials are. Granted, the calculations "look" ok, but they still differ from the officially published source (perhaps the official source has additional data that you haven't found?). Plus, wikipedia articles do not cite other wikipedia articles as sources, and especially do not cite talk pages as sources. External reliable sources in print or online media are required. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is factually wrong and I can prove it. This site uses operational data, or wind speeds from the advisories issued every 6 hours.  ACE calculations use best track data, or wind speeds issued after the storm in a report by the National Hurricane Center.  The last storm of the season, Hurricane Issac dissipated on October 3rd.  The site you claim is a "reliable source" was last updated on October 4th.  But the report on Issac, which contains the official best track data wasn't released until November 16.  The source you want to use is factually incorrect and so should be deleted. ---CWY2190TC 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was part of the discussion in 2005, and I wanted to keep the ACE calculations. The person calling this original research is mistaken, because ACE calcs are simple calculations that can be reproduced by the reader. The data is all available. One just has to plug it into the formula. See the first section of These are not original research. The individual calculations are helpful to anyone looking for statistics. However on this page it seems the errors might stem from out-of-date information or serious rounding of the numbers.Clobberella (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey
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) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

GA Review
Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.

Pass

Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.[2]

Pass

Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.

Pass

Written from a neutral point of view.

Pass

Article is stable, with no active edit wars.

Pass

If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

Pass

Overall

Pass

Reviewed by TheNobleSith (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AIDS
What's with the intro to this article? And why is the font red? I'm not sure how to fix this, but please, someone do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSoko315 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been hacked! TorstenGuise (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not in the history, so yea, it looks like it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the page and placed a notice in the admin vandalism page. Hoping they will stop the vandal. The Shadow Knows (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was in Infobox hurricane season. -- RattleMan 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In both, if we look at their history... but it seems that I reverted a little too late... Someone addressed this before... The Shadow Knows (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I undid the process once in the history, but then it disappeared, and so did my undoing. I'm confused. However, it appears the page is fixed, so that's good. Robert (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in brackets in the deaths column
I'm sure this is me being stupid, but in the death column, why are some numbers in brackets? --194.81.189.42 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The numbers you are speaking of are deaths that were considered indirect. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

Generic information in lead
This recent edit put some 60 words describing, generically, the limits of hurricane seasons. Although the sentence's last two clauses contained information specific to the 2006 season, this is not an effective way to begin the article. I've moved the generic info back down, allowing information specific to the 2006 season to rise. PRRfan (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The format of explaining the dates in the immediate beginning of the lead has been used for most if not all hurricane season FAs, but I suppose this works, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Downloadable (free) Google Earth KMZ files of 2006 Hurricane paths
I would like to suggest this link for inclusion: 2006 Hurricanes - Hurricane tracker Bodaonline (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Generic info in lead
The lead paragraph, if not the entire intro, of any article should include information specific to the article's subject. A generic definition of the dates of the hurricane season does not belong. If you believe that the tail end of 2005's Zeta deserves mention in the very first paragraph, you might try leading your sentence with that, rather than the definition; e.g., "The 2006 season also included Zeta, which stretched from December 2005 into January 2006." PRRfan (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oy, putting that statement in the lede would cause some flames around here, and the language currently there is rather well-descriptive of the situation. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe. I knew it wouldn't die.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season?
Same rationale as 2009. The information is duplicated and redundant between this article and the list article. The list article is not featured, so it should not be a major issue merging that, and I don't think the fact this is featured should preclude the merging. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be ok since this article in my opinion is in need of a lot more content. However i would suggest getting one of the FA directors to check the article if the merge is completed.Jason Rees (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and merge. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to merge, if its going to be the same format as you did with 2009. However, I think this merge may risk delisting this article as FA, seeing that the List of storms page was only start-class. BTW, which other seasons are you going to do this to? Is this going to happen to all of them, or just the seasons that don't deserve a separate list article (like 1994 and 2002, imo).--12george1 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as it'll be a true merge, I don't think it will jeopardize the FA class. FA's are allowed to evolve and change (speaking of change...). As for the others, I would think 2002 and 1994 for starters, but ultimately I think the list article should be phased out or converted into something different and encyclopediac. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge until the issues in Featured list candidates/List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 are addressed. Do not put in jeopardy the FA status of this article. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no problem since those issues were ones I raised, and which I intend to fix ;) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's done. I'll be taking this to GT now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The question that quite never goes away
I see the merge has been done, and that the merged content is adequately referenced. However, one thing was considerably changed from the List of Storms article was Zeta. It originally was in the Storms section, and now it is a passing mention in the season summary. That strikes me as odd, considering that Zeta was not really part of the season per se. Shouldn't it be in the storms section? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Zeta should even be mentioned, except for maybe a very brief blurb somewhere in the lead or something. It was clearly part of the 2005 cycle of storms, which produced storms within weeks of Zeta — the next storm, part of the 2006 cycle, wouldn't form for another six months. The article should be about the 2006 meteorological cycle, IMO, not necessarily about all storms that happened to spill over into 2006. Juliancolton (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I put it in the season summary. There aren't any officially statistics that actually include Zeta as part of the 2006 AHS. No mention in MWR, NHC year-end summary, not in the track map, and not even part of 2006's ACE. Zeta is quite unlike Alice, which was operationally only known to have existed in 1955, as well as causing impact in that year. Zeta was always known to be a 2005 storm, and like JC said, it was part of the 2005's cycle of activity (coming just weeks after Epsilon). I agree it should only get a blurb in the 2006 page (it actually gets two, one in lede and one in season summary). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hurricane Helene (2006) into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
Fails WP:NWX since there was minimal land impact and no meteorological reasoning for the article. The season article section is quite small and this could be summarized there easily. Noah, AATalk 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree - Helene clearly caused minimal impacts and should just be merged with the season &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - the season article is on the short side, and could benefit from having the additional content. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hurricane Isaac (2006) into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
Fails WP:NWX since the impact was minimal. The season article, an FA, would improve if this were merged into it since the section there is quite small and lacking. Noah, AATalk 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree: Issac clearly had minimal impacts, only affecting small portions of Newfoundland with gales &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - the season article is on the short side, and could benefit from having the additional content. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Debby (2006) into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
Debby only brought minimal impacts to Cape Verde, the only place it affected. Nothing that would establish notability. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I've been trying years to merge it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To this day, I still am unaware why this article exists, let alone manage to be GA &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Back in 2005 and into 2006, a lot of Wikipedia editors thought that there could be an article for every named storm. I'm pretty sure the French Wikipedia has articles for just about every named storm. I personally have long been opposed to that, as I feel that the focus should be on the season articles, seeing as that is the overview article for all tropical cyclones in a given basin. That said, I'm not sure why I felt like expanding the article initially back in September 2006. College jitters I guess? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly fails WP:NWX due to a lack of significant impact.
 * <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 20:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Support merge: Not very noteworthy; little coverage or impact, certainly not enough to warrant a standalone article.The season article is the place to tell this storm's story. Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Beryl (2006) into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
While the storm did have some impact, I feel like much of it falls under WP:ROUTINE since it wasn't severe in nature. The season section (this season article is an FA) is woefully lacking here as well and could use a boost from this article's content. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak support: Beryl did cause some impacts, but that isn't enough to warrant its own article. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - the season article is on the short side, and could benefit from having the additional content. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)