Talk:Hurricane Isaac (2006)

Hurricane Isaac (2006) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 27, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
February 22, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Supershow, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 9 February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

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. Mitch azenia(7900+edits) 23:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. – Ch acor 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Hurricane Isaac. I say merge immediately unless someone has the time to expand this ASAP. – Ch acor 08:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, since this is essentially 100% seasonal article. WP:BOLD. Redirecting, since there's no additional info to be provided. – Ch acor 08:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, by the way, informed the page creator, and told him about our {{Tropical cyclone article formatting}} and guidelines. – Ch acor 08:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. – Ch acor 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content from talk page

Tone issues. Not encyclopedic tone. Don't publish it until fixed. Remove NRL mentions. – Ch acor 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be a little more specific on which ones.Mitch azenia(8200+edits) 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 <ref name="something"/>. Good luck! íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Ch acor 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I couldn't find any impact info online. Could you check your newspaper archive? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Isaac (2006). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Hurricane Isaac (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural Delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.