Talk:Hurricane Irene (2005)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mangelango. Peer reviewers: Mangelango.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Todo
No real information here outside of the storm history. Could some more (different-looking) pics be found? Jdorje 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge
What do you think? I think it should be merged because it did nothing but a fishspinner. --24.85.161.198 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So did Maria... well sort of.Icelandic Hurricane 01:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maria killed 1 person... Irene, did nothing. --24.85.161.198 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Irene was a big nothing. A Category 2 hurricane is not notable for being a Category 2 hurricane. I would support separate articles for each storm instead of one separate article for all of the storms, but it seems that the opposite was the consensus on the 2005 page. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, Irene isn't notable, I think we shouldn't be discussing this anymore, Irene was only a fishspinner. It should be Merged. Memicho 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I say merge. It did next to nothing. Mind you, a case could be made to keep. Maria is as notable as Irene, fishspinners. Maria made landfall as extratropical.WotGoPlunk 03:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maria at least did some damage. 24.85.161.198 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when there has been articles for fishspinners that did nothing and only reached category 1 or 2? Never, why are we still discussing this? I say it should be merged. Memicho 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, nobody's objected to the merge. But whoever does it, make sure you merge the whole thing. We could even add full infoboxes to the storms list page... &mdash; jdorje (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you jdorje. Memicho 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

On notability, merge back. However, the page is long enough and detailed enough to warrant keeping. As a result, I vote to keep, simply on its length. CrazyC83 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still in favor of having one article per storm, rather than the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms article. However if we don't have an article for every storm, I don't think Irene is particlarly worthy on its own. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I say we keep it, and let people add info.--Weatherman90 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Good kitty 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge, as it's a fishspinner. It did no damage whatsoever.WotGoPlunk 16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep is the point of wikipedia not to have as much info as possible?  Jamie | C 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Maybe there will be enough information when the TCR is completed, but it wasn't a very important storm to keep its article separated. juan andrés 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Irene report is already out. 24.85.161.198 06:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge, right now my vote is to merge Irene's article, but if someone can find some interesting information, I think we could keep it. Memicho 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy merge, this storm did nothing whatsoever. All that needs to be said can be said in the main article. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Todo2
Forecasting and post-season changes. Hurricanehink 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think forecasting and post-season changes should be mentioned in every article. This is just trivia.  Notable information on this can be embedded in the other sections (storm history and preparations) but tiny changes simply are not encyclopedic. — jdorje (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I partially disagree. I think forecasting is pretty important to a storm, though post-season changes isn't necessary for small changes. For a storm like Irene, I think it should be mentioned that several models indicated a significant threat to the east coast of the United States, something that wouldn't be mentioned in the article if it were eliminated. Hurricanehink 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Forecasting can be significant, but only in the context of the human preparations it causes. Hurricane Floyd does a good job here, by covering the forecasting issues in the Preparations section. — jdorje (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, it could go either way. However, IIRC, one discussion forecasted Irene to be just south of Massachusettes as a Category 2 hurricane. I think that such information should be in the article, given that it's not in the TCR and that it's relavent to the storm. Hurricanehink 15:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussions #29 "A possible U.S. landfall by day 5 can not be ruled out at this time", #31 "the outlier GFDN...calls for a landfall in North Carolina". Is it just me or does Dr. Avila seem to be so easily quotable? This how discussion #4 opens "HOW LITTLE WE KNOW ABOUT THE GENESIS OF TROPICAL CYCLONES...". --Nilfanion 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thinking about. What's the harm in adding something like that? And Nilfanion, you're exactly right. He does seem to be pretty easily quotable, and that quote is sooo true. Hurricanehink 17:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stuff like that could be mentioned, but it does not deserve a separate section. Either it could be a part of the storm history (for things of meteorological note, like possible NC or NE landfalls) or in the preparations section (for information that people actually act upon). — jdorje (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

<-- OK, putting stuff like that works in the storm history. Seeing as we're discussing the sections here, I also think that small ACE changes should be ignored (if a storm differs by less than 1 point, no need to mention it). Then, the forecasting section could be split up by preparations (warnings and evacuations) and storm history- "Early predictions indicated a threat to North Carolina or Massachusettes, though a trough of low pressure pulled Irene to the north" something like that. Does that work? Hurricanehink 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added in a lot of forecast info and the other things, without adding it to a forecast section this time and improved it up to a Start I think. The forecasting information is interspersed in the storm history for the most part, it is fairly obvious which bits it is (the links to discussions; suppose they ouught to be converted to the proper ref format). The ACE comment is in trivia, and the lack of warnings in Impact (that seems the best place). Looking at the length of the storm section now, I think I favour a separate section, not because it is 'worthy' in terms of significance, but to make the storm history more readable. Perhaps if it was a subsection of the history? --Nilfanion 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you can probably shorten the storm history. Typically, a storm history for a Cape Verde type storm is 3-4 paragraphs, unless it did something special. You can probably cut out 1 or two of those paragraphs. Here's a format you could use. Paragraph 1 could be TW to formation to Tropical Storm status. Paragraph 2 could be weakening to TD to restrengthening. Paragraph 3 could be strengthening to Cat 2 status, threatening the East Coast of the United States, and becoming extratropical. The storm history is always interesting, but it shouldn't be the meat of a typical article. Typically, the storm history should only be a side dish, while the impact is the meat, though 2005 is different. I don't know. Maybe you should bring it up on the 2005 page again, showing what you did to this page. Hurricanehink 13:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well its a start. This is the longest lasting of the fishspinners of 2005, so this will have the most extreme case (Cape Verde type large history, empty impact), so when we go back working over the others they won't be so bad. It will look better when the ref format is altered after all. I think 4 paras would work here; split the pre-peak and post-peak bits up? As it stands it might be nearing B-class, is that fair? --Nilfanion 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should add quotes from the discussions to the article, like Dennis and Epsilon do? That will make the storms section longer though.--Nilfanion 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jdorje, I agree the post-season analysis is not notable for Irene, but the phrasing of your edit summary makes me a little confused, because it is significant on some storms. Perhaps we should drop ACE comments (or add it to the infobox?) and put "initially it was thought the minimum pressure of Irene was 975 but it was reduced to 970 in post-season analysis" in ths storm history in the discussion of Irenes peak? --Nilfanion 08:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some postseason changes are notable for some storms. The post-season ACE changes are never notable, however.  And postseason changes never belong in the "statistics and records" (or "records and naming") sections.  Hurricane Vince (2005) had some notable post-season changes, and these are embedded pretty effectively into the storm history section.  (All this, of course, is just my opinion.) — jdorje (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a case for the ACE to be in the storm article, probably in the infobox, but not the changes. I agree the notable changes can be embedded in the storm history. On ACE changes, IMO Lee's is just worthy of keeping, as that is actually (remotely) interesting. I don't think there is much more we can do with this article now, except minor copyediting. Where does it fit on the assessment scale now?--Nilfanion 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think the ACE belongs in the infobox, as it is not a particularly notable nor meaningful value (why choose the ACE rather than the PDI - the latter is more meaningful). However I have no objection to ACE being mentioned somewhere in the article, BUT this should not be done just as filler.  If you think the ACE is actually worth mentioning it should be mentioned for all storms, not just for storms that you can't find anything else to write about.  As for what to do with the article - the intro needs to be lengthened to about 2 paragraphs (see the wikiproject criteria for important links), and some mention of non-retirement/reuse of the name should be added, somewhere. — jdorje (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well "Naming and Records would cover retirement nicely. Agree, the intro needs work (2 paragraphs might be tricky, but then so do all the storm articles of 2005, even the retired ones, there is that annoying "nth storm, mth hurricane nonsense" in the first sentence. How about the meat of the article, apart from the naming stuff you suggested? I'm not fussed about ACE, just thinking that the larger community might be. --Nilfanion 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The storm history is good. The impact section...well, there is nothing more to say on it. — jdorje (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I will try and get this 'finished' later today. --Nilfanion 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless we get to hear about some damages to shipping I think this article is essentially finished. As such I have raised it to B-class, hope thats reasonable? This doesn't relate to the upkeep of this article, but I followed the image link to the commons, and the description there is still as a current event. Should those descriptions be updated? --Nilfanion 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, don't know about the commons. Good work on the article, though. One thing that's needed is location indicators. For example, what was the closest point of approach to North Carolina? Bermuda? How close to the Cape Verde islands did it form? Hurricanehink 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Added the Cape Verde distance, and "midway between NC and Bermuda" (the TCR doesn't give those hard numbers, though they could be worked out from the best track. --Nilfanion 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, and I copyedited it. Hurricanehink 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

GA feedback
I don't think it's there yet - here's my suggestions:


 * Shortly after reaching its peak Hurricane Irene weakened again - kind of obvious, no?
 * This resulted in a significant change in some of the models, which had initally predicted a steady strengthening, changing to predicting that the depression would in fact dissipate - grammatically confusing.
 * As quoted by National Hurricane Center forecaster Dr. Lixion Avila, appears to say 'and we endorse what he's saying' - you should use a different phrasing.
 * Irene continued to struggle - very odd, anthropomorphic wording. Also, the next paragraph starts with The models continued to struggle so fix the first thing and you've killed two birds with one stone.
 * Some models predicted that Irene make landfall - poor grammar.
 * Such intensification was unexpected, as though the meteorologists... - this ambiguous wording needs changing.
 * The term extratropical needs explaining on its first usage.
 * Hurricane Irene never affected any land areas with no damage or fatalities reported - this is very bad writing.
 * Please make sure headings are given normal sentence capitalisation.
 * Finally, I think you should remove the link to the cyclones portal - it's a self-reference. Worldtraveller 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All good points, except for the last one. Every tropical cyclone has a link to the Tropical cyclone portal. Hurricanehink 21:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah agree, working on it.--Nilfanion 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, on that last point I'd probably better find a forum in which to have a broader discussion... linking to the portal from every single cyclone article is really bad in my opinion. There are very strong reasons for avoiding this kind of self reference and I don't think any other portal does this.  Worldtraveller 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where else would there be a link to the forum? Hurricanehink 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how common it is but Cricket has a similar link to the portal concept.--Nilfanion 22:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Template_talk:Portal it should go in the "See also" section, which is (IIRC) why I first put it there. It could perhaps also go under external links (where commons links go).  I don't really care myself but it will be a pain to change it for all 500+ TC articles which include it.  And regardless, the discussion over placement should be on the template talk page (i.e., the link above). — jdorje (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done a copyedit to address your concerns, does it look better now? (I don't think theres a problem with the portal link, all the FA storm articles like Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Gloria have it)--Nilfanion 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

FA
I think that this article is the Category 5 standard for non-landfalling hurricanes. Let's say we nominate it for Featured article status. Even if it fails it will provide good feedback on similar articles in the future. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. See here for the talk of the next FA. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would this picture be of use in the article? It is currently used on the tropical cyclone article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's really room for another image. Also, ANOTHER FA! *Party* — Cuivi é  nen T, Thursday, 18 May 2006 @ 22:48 UTC
 * I think its ironic that we use that rainfall picture in tropical cyclone. The TRMM produces plenty of similar images, it should be possible to find a image for a more interesting storm for tropical cyclone and the relevant storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the rainfall map from Tropical Storm Allison, or another very rainy tropical storm? The only reason I say that is because the TRMM's are a little difficult to understand. If you want a TRMM for the tropical cyclone article, Stan looks impressive, as does Katrina (but Katrina is always used). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Too much repetition !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analogue 10oO (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)