Talk:Tropical Storm Don (2011)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

I removed the GA nomination, as I want a real discussion on this. The storm did nothing. It produced minor rainfall, minimal storm surge, and no damage. Why should it have an article? How notable is the storm, really? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It should have an article because it made landfall in the US. This article is 1) high-quality 2) it passes WP:N, so I see no reason why it should be merged. "How notable is the storm, really?" makes it seem like WP is paper when it is not. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reason it should have an article. No notability is inherent. Tropical depressions that hit the US aren't automatically allowed to have an article. I'm not sure it passes WP:N. Just please stop being so dramatic about the merging and look at the storm, not at the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability is inherent in some cases. Landfalling US storms in the modern day (post-2000 or so) generally have significant coverage, so thus they are verifiable and Notable. And how does it fail WP:N? And how I am being dramatic? I am just saying my thoughts. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy, and no, I'd argue that TD 9 in 2000 shouldn't have an article. How is Don actually notable? What did it do? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don is notable for its bizarre weakening prior to landfall. It also got significant media attention, so I don't see why it can't have an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

OK, I'd agree its rapid weakening makes it pretty notable. Anyone else have any thoughts? I just wanted a little discussion before it was a GA (since that can make it dramatic). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially in context with some of the other severe storms lately, this is notable and should be kept. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, compared to other more damaging storms, Don did absolutely nothing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Little impact, just a good quality article, so I support this merge. HurricaneFan25 | talk 13:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why merge a good-quality article? Why have a long season section when a storm article can easily made? After all there is no technical limit in the number of articles. And how is its strange drop in wind speed prior to landfall not notable? I'd agree that compared to other more damaging storms this year, Don did less, but was still interestingnotable enough for an article IMO.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability, to be brief, is more important than the article's subject itself. In an encyclopedic view, it doesn't really matter whether the subject of the article is interesting or not. HurricaneFan25 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, quality does matter if an article stays or not. In fact, If the article was stub/start class, I might agree with a merge. FYI, I made a test here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Notability is a policy. Lack of information, true, can mean a merge. Many good articles in the scope of the tropical cyclone WikiProject have previously been merged due to a lack of information or because there was no "real" establishment of notability. HurricaneFan25 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But, this storm meets WP:N and WP:V, so Don is notable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, IMO, it doesn't. No deaths. Little damage. Some governments and the National Hurricane Center issued warnings, and a university did the same. Some oil companies evacuated a few platforms, and it was a bit windy and rainy once Don came ashore. HurricaneFan25 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don got quite a bit of attention as a TC. Oil company evacuations are moderately significant IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

...but other than that, what other major impacts did it cause other than issuance of warnings, wind, and rain? HurricaneFan25 14:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much, it's a low-impacting storm for sure, but I do feel the above is enough to warrant an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought it'd be a lot longer with the test, so I could go either way. You argue that it's notable for its rapid weakening, but I'm not sure that is enough that makes this storm important. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I condensed the prose slightly, something I don't like doing. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, all sub-articles are naturally a bit bloated, so some text would have to be condensed slightly. It's not like it'd be losing any information though. I'll ask again, what did the storm really do to deserve an article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, really, I'd say. Evacuations, warnings, rain, and wind. HurricaneFan25 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It got significant attention, had a bizzare weakening, prompted evacuation and warnings, and cuased rain/wind. Seems enough for an article, especially if it is reasonably high-quality. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I oppose merging this article. Chances are, it is likely expandable.--12george1 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How, if the storm didn't do anything? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it is lacking impact in Mexico: [1],[2], and [3]--12george1 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to using Wunderground to source rainfall data like that, which is a dubious source to begin with. Nevertheless, here is some actual reliable impact: [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. Not much, but it's something. Auree ★ 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Don (2011)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note - I contributed to this article when it was in its prime. It has been revised entirely, and I haven't been involved with it since. Auree ★ 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice,fiction, and lists):

Prose is fine, just a few niggles:

• "The combination of vertical wind shear and proximity to land impeded further development." Maybe "and the wave's proximity"?
• "Early on July 26, the thunderstorms became more concentrated to the south of Cuba, in association with a low-pressure area." Can this be reworded so it's clearer that this has to do with the wave/precursor?
• "The NHC predicted steady intensification to at least 65 mph (100 km/h) owing to generally favorable conditions including warm waters and light to moderate wind shear." Two things. 65 mph (100 km/h) what? And it reads like a run-on sentence.
• Do we know when it made landfall? The bit succeeding that is very specific with the times and all, so it'd be nice to add it in.
• "Late on July 27, the National Hurricane Center issued a tropical storm watch from Port Mansfield, Texas to San Luis Pass, Texas." Maybe removed the first ", Texas"?
• "southwards", but "westward"?
• Lots of unnecessary "the storm"s in the next paragraph ("from the storm", "for the storm", "ahead of the storm", etc.)
• I made a quick copy-edit, please check the changes. Auree ★ 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

MoS compliance:

• I don't think Atmospheric circulation is the right place to link to for surface circulation.

• The new Tropical cyclone#structure link takes me nowhere in the tropical cyclone article. Did you mean to link to Tropical cyclone#Physical structure? Auree ★ 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Surely we can come up with a better title for the external link. :) Auree ★ 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I meant that "Advisory Archive" alone is not descriptive enough (something like "The NHC's Advisory Archive for Tropical Storm Don" would be much more adequate). The section header should always be titled "External links", and the new external link to the TCR is redundant (already used in the refs). Auree ★ 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I notice there's no See also section. While not required, most TC articles have this, so it'd be best to comply.

• See also section goes before the Reference section. Auree ★ 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not really a GA issue, but for optimal consistency, check for things like (over)linking to unnecessary things, style compliance (AmE/BrE, serial comma usage or not, etc.) and date/number conventions (I see things like 1200 km instead of 1,200 and both "2011-11-27" and "27 July 2011" in the refs).

• There's one unnecessary link to Texas in the Preps/Impact section that I would like to see removed. Auree ★ 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some dead links in the article right now due to the NHC's domain change; these can be fixed by adding "2011/" after the first "TWDAT" in the urls. The link to one news article has also gone dead. See here

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As comprehensive as an article for such an uneventful storm can be.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Certainly.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good

5. 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):

   Images are good, though the caption for the second is a bit vague. What is a TRMM, and what does the image represent?

   I believe the image is self-explanatory. "Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission" is some sort of mission, and the caption indicates the image is showing the amount of rainfall. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I believe I addressed everything but the TRMM bit. Thanks for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not optimal MoS compliance, but this article certainly meets the GA requirements now. Good work and congrats! Auree ★ 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)