Talk:1996 Lake Huron cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tropical cyclones (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Non-tropical storms (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Non-tropical storms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of worldwide non-tropical storm events on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Interesting Stuff, Layman's terms please![edit]

This is really interesteing, but not being a weatherman or climatologist makes it hard to understand what the heck this article is talking about and get a picture idea of what happened. This "Great Lakes hurricane" was an extremely interesting storm event even for the us laypeople, too. Is there any way that the article can separate the technical stuff and add a layperson's section of what the heck happened (like the path, any damage, wave heights, you know the usual exciting stuff that sells the weather report after a storm). There surely has to be non-technical descriptions of what happened. Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.250 (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Being a meteorologist helps some, but the source was interpreted in such a way that some portions were incomprehensible. I've made an attempt to clean up the first few paragraphs, adding in wikilinks and convert templates where necessary. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Todo[edit]

Is this article really needed? – Chacor 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

uh, no. Civil Engineer III 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
uh, hell yeah! :) --24.154.173.243 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important enough to stay. I'll just give it some cleanup over the week. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of references to it on google, and enough information for an article, so why not? Surely its more notable than Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Jamie|C 13:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wind speed[edit]

It would be really helpful if the two units of windspeed were not both metric (m/s; km/h). I mean, after all, the lakes are in the US as well. Can anyone do the conversion? Unschool (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be edited. It needs to emphasize the warm-core (or tropical-like) versus cold-core aspects of the storm system at different points in time. There are a few instances where the word "level" is used where the word "low" needs to be used. The mention of positive vorticity and thermal advection is too technical. The NWS-Detroit web site provides a pretty good alternative to reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.80.222 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Damages?[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for how much damage in dollars was caused by the flooding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talkcontribs) 00:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look through newspapers, both on and offline to see if we can get better quantification on damage, this "Whale in a bathtub" of a storm did to the surrounding area.Graham1973 (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

too techy[edit]

I'd consider myself an expert in cyclones, and my brain is exercised to read this. needs some "dumbing down" or at least a weathergeek-to-english translation.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 05:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least, the impact section needs to be more than one sentence. As it stands, this reads like a great scientific journal article. Sadly, that's inappropriate for general interest encyclopedia. Not saying the technical info must go, but it shouldn't be all that the article consists of. There's no consideration for the laypersons here. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See if the first few paragraphs of the text make more sense, or are more understandable. If so, I'll continue. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks quite a bit better. Still could use some beefing up in the impact section, but the technical parts are certainly more readable. Only minor quibble would be that mbar doesn't need to be linked every time it's used. But otherwise, good work and thanks. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)