Talk:Tropical Storm Charley (1998)

Todo
More info all around. Other pictures would be nice as well. Hurricanehink 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I would like to merge this into the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season Article. It was not that notable of a storm. What do other people think? Lionheart Omega 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason why I didn't entitle the above section as Todo/Merge was due to its death toll. 20 was sufficient for other storm's existance (Gordon in 2000 comes to mind). However, the effects seem to be localized, and the article has little useful information. I agree with the merge, provided some of the info is merged and the article isn't just redirected. Hurricanehink 04:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with merge. --Coredesat 11:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with merge. 20 deaths isn't enough to make it onto the NHC's deadliest-hurricanes list and is not by itself enough to justify an article. — jdorje (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Hurricanehink 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

todo2
Now that this is revived, more impact is needed. This should be able to be done. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll help out. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've already added a little more to the Texas impact. Plus, I bet there was damage and are damage totals for mexico somewhere. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe over the weekend. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll give it a little love. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Few Mexican Observations
I've been scouring the Internet for two days, and the only Mexican observations I can find are those directly out of the Mexican Weather Service report on Charley. I'm presuming there are no more.TheNobleSith (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This report gives rainfall in Mexico, which should be added to the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review
I'm going to review this article for GA, since I haven't significantly contributed to it (though the same cannot be said for two of your references.) Let's review...

It is written reasonably well. We have a few problems. The lead needs to be a summary of the article below, and right now it doesn't mention any impact from Charley, so a line or two considering its impact needs to be included within the lead. A couple sentences start with a numeral. It is good writing style to spell out numbers if they begin a sentence. We have ambiguous wording in some portions such as "origins were somewhat ambiguous," "possibly associated," "origins were disputed." Lines such as "data is extremely scarce" should not be within a GA article, especially if it doesn't add to the effects of a system. Wikipedia prefers less ambiguous text, as would befit an encyclopedia. I would include what you have for Texas in the "aftermath" section into the impact section (thus removing the aftermath section), because otherwise, you'll have to fill out that stubby section with more information in order to get this to pass GA. Julian thinks more information can be added here. While I agree to some degree, I don't see the relevant information you might need in a source, such as the most important detail (why did Charley strengthen?) listed in either the TCRs or real-time hurricane discussions. Check to see if there's any information regarding the impact of its flooding in Del Rio. This could probably be found on the NCDC web site. I don't want us completely reproducing the TCR in the article. There might be one additional line concerning recon that could be mentioned during its strengthening phase. We now have one red wikilinks...one is merely a typo. Make sure to correct that. Reference 1 is not an original source, and doesn't even seem to mention Charley. Try this link as a replacement. Two of your refs below (#2 and #10) are identical. Merge them by using ref naming. Ref #9 only goes to the main SMN page. We're going to need a more specific reference there. Hurricanehink's looks good for the wind. Per wikipedia's citing sources article, you need to add authors for the references (dates retrieved are helpful in case a link goes dead). Also, references 1 and 2 are identical. That needs to be resolved. We have two one problem s with SI units not being included within the lead (where miles and inches are used, but km and mm are absent). Convert templates will patch that right up. Only six people have edited the article this calendar year. I see no recent signs of vandalism. That's stable enough for me. It would be nice to include one additional image into the article, but for this storm that might be hard to scare up.
 * Well written: Pass
 * Factual accuracy: Nearly a pass
 * Broadness: Pass
 * NPOV: Nearly a pass
 * Stability: Pass
 * Images: Pass
 * Overall: Close to a pass

Make these changes, and I'll make another pass at the article to make sure nothing else needs to be done. Try to avoid using red links within the article, if you think other changes are required that weren't covered above. Look at this page for a rainfall amount for Mexico, which will help add some meat to that section. I think if you make these changes that GA status should be quickly achieved. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will make the corrections. Thanks.TheNobleSith (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've now made the corrections. You mentioned FAC. What, in your opinion, is necessary for FA class?TheNobleSith (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FA is a more difficult nut to crack. FA involves numerous reviewers, which involves numerous different opinions.  Julian has a point concerning cite web; the reviewers I've encountered insist upon cite web for FA.  If you're not sure the article is FA worthy, you can always use the peer review track first.  Some people on here have bots that pick out small but important details needed for FA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

GA dispute

 * I am sorry, but I do not believe that this article meets B-Class standards, let alone GA or FA. there is a ton more info that can (and should) be found, the writing is not professional, and the references are not of proper format. There are other details as well. I do not believe that this should pass GA. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Any specific recommendations on that? And I don't know who rated it B-Class. It was Start the last time I saw it. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure exactly what the protocol is for situations like this, but with two reviewers in disagreement, perhaps a third opinion is in order? And also, as far as B-Class goes, this article seems very similar to that of Bret's{a similar storm in the sense that it caused little damage). So, unless I'm mistaken, either this is B-Class, or that isn't as well. Not that it matters, I'm not a "class-hound". If the article genuinely needs improving, I want to know how to do that and actually do so.TheNobleSith (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, Bret is not B class either, not on thr grounds that it caused little damage, but on the grounds that it's not a very good article. I'll give you some tips on how to improve this.


 * The storm history should be expanded to double or triple its current size using these NHC advisories
 * The preparations need to also be expanded, using google news, and typing in something similar to Tropical Storm Charley (1998) preparations evacuations, and scrolling down to 1998 on the left side.
 * For sure there is more impact. Try looking through the project resources, or again, search google, but you would also probably be able to find good information at the hurricane newspaper archive
 * The writing needs to be copyedited. Try going through each word, word by word, and seeing if you can improve the writing. Festered, for exapmle, is an odd word for an encyclopediac article. For that, you could replace it with persisted.
 * The references need to be in form. All of them. Also, it seems to me that you just put the TCR ref after most of the statements in the article, hoping it would cover the fact. Every single reference has to agree 100% with the information you put in the article, and vise-versa.

There are other things too, but that is what this article would need to get started off with. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite web for GA? Nothing in the wikipedia citations article mentions that a citation must be in cite web format for GA. Reviewers usually require it for FA though. In fact, the examples in the wikipedia article use ref format. It does, however, mention that the citations should have more information, which was mentioned. We'll just switch that to a must for GA criteria instead of making it optional. As for B class, all that is required is that most of the bases for the article are covered, although we usually add that a reasonably amount of inline references are needed. What huge detail is missing from this article that should switch this back to start class? There are only five TCDs he can work off of...how can he triple that section's length? GA does not require an article to be a novel...it just requires that all relevant information for the topic is within the article. It didn't impact that large of an area. In my opinion, it looks like most everything that can be covered has been covered. As for dispute, if after its passage any individual does not agree, they can send it through Good_article_reassessment. Let me talk to Julian on his talk page concerning the dispute, so we don't have to go that route. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound like I am against anybody, but if you could take a look at Tropical Storm Fay (2002), which took a very similar path, and has a much larger Storm history, you could see that, while triple may be exagerating, the SH in this article could at least double in size. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's be helpful to NobleSith. =)  What needs to be added, in your opinion, and where might he find it?  I've given him a couple ideas above.  While the comparison to Fay might be tempting, look at the difference between the two TCRs regarding the information in the impact section.  Stacey was definitely complete in his writing up of Fay.  There is much less information in the Charley report.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Julian. As far as SH goes, there simply isn't that much information in those TCDs and the TCR to go on. In Fay's article, the meteorological conditions affecting the storm were detailed with references to the various NHC sources. Charley doesn't have the luxury of extremely detailed NHC sources. Yeah, it can be expanded, but IMO it can't get near Fay's size.TheNobleSith (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yss, I agree that it can't be expanded to be as large as Fay's SH, but I did expand it quite a bit, to help out. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. as for impact, what am I looking for? More meteorological impacts? I've found a bit more preparations info, and will be incorporating them in to the article soon.TheNobleSith (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, meteorolological impacts, as well as other impact such as specific cases of damage. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some preparations info. Not a ton, but what I could find. The real trouble is that I really doubt much preparations took place, and the lack of much info on preparations seems to back that up, but I couldn't just say "There were no significant preparations", since that wouldn't sound very good, nor have I found any source actually saying that. I'm going to work on the impacts now. Texas shouldn't be terribly hard, but Mexico wil be difficult to find info for, as even the main Mexican Weather Service report has little info.TheNobleSith (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're on the right track concerning the change in referencing notation. Make sure all the references are consistent regarding authorship information.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have added to the preparations and impacts section, and simply don't know what more to add in those areas. This was a weak, 50 million dollar tropical storm that made landfall one day after formation. There isn't that much to cover. I'm going to do as Julian suggested and copy-edit it for wording, fix some of the references up, and add to the intro (the demise of the storm has no mention), but besides that I cannot think of anything more to add. Perhaps something will come to me while copy-editing.TheNobleSith (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Make those changes and I'll pass it.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)