Talk:Hurricane Isaac (2006)

Assessment
Needs a little work, name those refs for one thing. Start/Low is the main. Hold on, now that I looked more, it needs more info, not just whats on the seasonal article, either fix this or i'd set for a merge. Mitchazenia (7900+edits) 23:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs more storm history. It should use Tropical Weather Outlooks and discussions in addition to the tropical cyclone report. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge
We agreed no article until TCR. Now that the TCR's out, Crazy's been working on an article for a long time. I say we merge Crazy's article in here, and fast. Not enough standalone info without the TCR. – Chacor 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not really get into updating Isaac very much. Whatever is done would need to be reworked completely. I say stay with this base and work from here. CrazyC83 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the article is basically what we have at the seasonal article. There is nothing else here. Nothing from the TWOs, TWDs or TCR has been used. This is essentially an exact copy of 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. I say merge immediately unless someone has the time to expand this ASAP. – Chacor 08:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what, since this is essentially 100% seasonal article. WP:BOLD. Redirecting, since there's no additional info to be provided. – Chacor 08:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have, by the way, informed the page creator, and told him about our Tropical cyclone article formatting and guidelines. – Chacor 08:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about creating this, I just thought that it was strange that Isaac was the only storm from 2006 not to have it's own article. Just trying to help! Cainer91 02:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, and your enthusiasm is very welcome! Normally we wait for the tropical cyclone report (which is now out) before we create articles on storms which did little. However, the article you created, based wholly around Environment Canada releases, just happened to have no additional information compared to the main article (because we also used EC info there). This article will probably be restarted as soon as someone has to time to look through the TCR, and NHC TWOs and TWDs, to create a proper article. – Chacor 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Content from talk page
Tone issues. Not encyclopedic tone. Don't publish it until fixed. Remove NRL mentions. – Chacor 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Be a little more specific on which ones.Mitchazenia (8200+edits) 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, this article looks pretty good. I think the tone is fine. But for future reference, if there is the same reference in an article more than once, instead of writing it out in each place, you can just write. Good luck! íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are simple, basic factual errors that riddle this article. What the hell is "Dvorak released its first numbers" supposed to mean? Dvorak isn't an organisation, it's a technique of judging storm intensity. More than one weather service uses Dvorak technique classifications. Clearly there is room for much, much improvement. – Chacor 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here:"The strengthening convection caused weather agencies to release its first Dvorak numbers on the system." That look better?Mitchazenia (8200+edits) 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to tell you? It's mostly the organization of the convection that determines Dvorak numbers, not the strength of it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help!
I've been trying to copyedit this article, but there's too much conflicting and contradictory information. For example, the lead says that Isaac reached tropical storm intensity on September 21 but the "History" section says September 28. It's not practical to do a copyedit until the basic facts are sorted, so is there anyone who can look through the article to make sure the facts are correct and consistent? Thanks! Raymond Arritt 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Todo
Was there any actual damage? Downed power lines? Any minor flooding? I find it hard to believe there was nothing. Other than that, good job with the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any impact info online. Could you check your newspaper archive? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hurricane Isaac (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061002041726/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20061001233924.Isaac.txt.en to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20061001233924.Isaac.txt.en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114214609/http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca:80/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20061002180428.Isaac.txt.en to http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20061002180428.Isaac.txt.en

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)