Talk:Hurricane Juan - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Titoxd (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 15 July 2008 ({{hurricane|class=FA|importance=Mid|storms-task-force=yes}}, assessing for WP DM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:34, 15 July 2008 by Titoxd (talk | contribs) ({{hurricane|class=FA|importance=Mid|storms-task-force=yes}}, assessing for WP DM)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hurricane Juan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Hurricane Juan is part of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 20, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 1, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Hurricane

Disaster management FA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Todo

Better organization, copyedit, better intro, references. Jdorje 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Images section

Below Aftermath was an Image section. I gave that the ax because it was weird and images like that belonged in the Aftermath section. →Cyclone1→ 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bettered the intro, workin on Organization. →Cyclone1→ 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Added preparations and still largely cutting down some of the useless, little, tiny, excruciating details such as where exactly the storm was located at an exact moment. Stuff like that isn't needed! It bores the heck out of readers and makes the article 5 times longer than it should be. Long articles aren't as good as good ones with interesting writing. →Cyclone1→ 18:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, its definatley still not an FA, but its a tad better than it was. →Cyclone1→ 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

I failed this article due to the fact that there are only two references. Some P. E rson 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Preparations

Changed date "...Sunday morning, September 27..." to September 28.

The comment "...By 6 p.m. hurricane warnings were issued..." I believe is technicaly incorrect. The Canadian Hurricane Centre had no official criteria to issue hurricane warnings. Heavy Rain warnings and Wind Warnings did however remain in effect. This is noted in the later section titled "Aftermath"- "...CHC's hurricane warning system has also been improved..."
Since it is true that media reports after 6 p.m. did become more alarming and warned people of the an impending hurricane landfall, I suggest rewording.
"...At 3 p.m. The Canadian Hurricane Centre issued an information statement that Hurricane Juan was bearing down on Nova Scotia..."
citation- http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/juan/bulletins/WT31-281800.txt
142.167.128.110 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Terry H.

GA nom

If I were reviewing this, I would fail it. There are no references for anything other than storm history. The rest of the article could use a rewrite. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything is referenced now. CrazyC83 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, better. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Effects outside of canada

Did Hurricane Juan indirectly affect the Northeastern United States (rainfall, rip currents?). In the sat pic shows the outflow of juan producing thunderstorms over northern maine but yet that is not mentioned in the article. Storm05 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this unofficial surfing website, the storm produced strong swells and high surf along the ECOTUS. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The circulation never affected the US; the rain was due to an unrelated cold front. It was a pretty small storm. CrazyC83 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For a little while, it looked like an MCS southwest of Juan might have been trying to develop, but it was unrelated to Juan. Thegreatdr 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?

who did that to the hurricane page! that's not funny!

cat?

An IP recently chaned the category to cat5; I changed it back to cat2 but wanted to verify with someone here that knows about it that that's correct. Revert me if necessary. Thanks, delldot | talk 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat 2 is correct. WJBscribe 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Death by county

Can we get a death per county list on here? -24.92.43.153 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally do that until the death toll at least reaches about 10 to 15, since it can easily be mentioned in the text. CrazyC83 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which version is valid?

I know the article is back to some copyedited version of the article that was not the FA-approved version. Please revert back and fix these tomorrow when it is off the main page. I'm not sure the information added in the past day is even correct, whereas CrazyC83 and Hurricanehink have used credible sources to write this. Good kitty 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very unhappy which such a blanket revert. Various editors in good standing have been involved in copyediting this page while in has been the main page featured article. There seems no reason to lose those edits. Those usually involved in the upkeep of the page can check it to ensure the information remains accurate and edit as necessary. But I think a very strong argument is needed for reverting all the recent changes. WJBscribe 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove edits that have been made to an article since it has been on the Main Page unless they are vandalism or otherwise degrade the quality of the article. Little has changed in this article except spelling standards, which should have been Commonwealth English from the beginning (since the article deals primarily with a Canadian subject). —Cuiviénen 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly but someone was changing the place names in the article, and I don't know if they are correct. It is that version that has been copyedited. Someone should probably check them all and compare them with the sources (especially NHC) or simply go back and copyedit the one we started with this morning. That's what should be done with this current version now. Everytime I see an edit comment in the history that says "so and so is NOT..." I get suspicious. There are so many anonymous IP edits today, I suggest making changes on it once the article is off the main page. That's why these things should be done BEFORE they are put on the main page. Good kitty 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just compared diffs of the current version at time of writing and the last of the 28th. Good Kitty's concerns are unfounded, there have only been copy-editing changes (which are improvements). The only changes which are remotely contentious that I could see are changing "made landfall near Halifax" to "made landfall on the coast of the Halifax Regional Municipality" (in the lead) - that is probably OK but needs a quick verification. The other change is from US spelling to Commonwealth (center -> centre), given the subject nothing wrong with that.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And after 5 seconds staring at a map and the NHCs TCR I can state that the article is accurate in saying the storm made landfall on HRM.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I checked in Google Earth and the NHC report's coordinates are outside the HRM. (The part highlighted in that article.) If they are rounded then the location is on that peninsula outside of HRM. Good kitty 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the name would be the Chubucto Peninsula, but I don't know anything about that place. Good kitty 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of the TCR states landfall between Peggys Cove and Prospect, Nova Scotia; which are both in HRM (which is a funny entity..._--Nilf anion (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If the HRM is similar to our counties and those boundaries highlighted are the HRM boundaries, then it looks like it is too far inland. I put it back to the original and added "former city of". Good kitty 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HRM = the former Halifax County, with all its municipalities merged into it. Think of it as a consolidated city-county. CrazyC83 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re currency

Juan resulted in eight fatalities and over $200 million (2003 USD) in damage.

Is this meant to be 200 million C$ or 200 million US$? Peter Grey 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"(2003 USD)" should make it clear. – Chacor 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant whether 2003 USD is correct. The site provided is a Canadian site, so I would actually assume 200 million C$. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that this would have been clarified before or during the FAC nomination, so I'd be hesitatnt to change it. – Chacor 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The site was that of the Canadian Hurricane Centre, which says damage totaled $200 million. I guess no one thought anything of it, so I still think it should be changed. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Landfall

Where exactly on the coast of the Halifax Regional Municipality was it ? According to Enviroment Canada the track of the storm was between Prospect and Peggy's Cove . --3250445 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I put. HRM is an entity mostly unknown outside Canada and is about as long as the distance between where I am and where Hurricane Rita struck. Rita was much bigger and stronger at landfall, but we only received a quarter inch of rain and outside it was a little gusty. Juan was very small and it probably wasn't very bad much past Halifax and Dartmouth. Good kitty 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind WP:LEAD. Appropriate detail for the lede is "HRM", appropriate detail for the body text is the exact landfall location - where is the landfall discussed in the prose?--Nilf anion (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The original version was much better in that regard because "HRM" is the less familiar term. That term probably shouldn't be mentioned, however I thought the second lede was a compromise until someone changed it back. Now its just missing the copyediting done while all the vandals were modifying the article. Good kitty 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Officially the city isn't called Halifax anymore, while it gains a lot of acknowledgment under this name both in and out of the region it is not correct. Reference to the Halifax Regional Municipality may not be so misplaced. --68.145.177.50 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

White Juan

I find it interesting that there is not a reference to White Juan, while completely unrelated weather systems as the storms both happened within a year of each other, they mark an period of interesting weather patterns not normally seen in the province. --68.145.177.50 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: