Talk:December 2013 North American storm complex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the December 2013 North American storm complex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

December 2013 North American storm complex was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 9, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

North America Mid‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America 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.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article 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 article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 11th August 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Expansion of the article

There's a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Toronto blackout (2013) that that article should be merged into this article with that article's subsequent deletion. This article should have a section impact on cities with a subsection for each city and that whole article should turn into the subsection 'Toronto' of this article execpt for the part of the introduction of that article that states that freezing rain added weight to tree branches causing them to fall off with some of them tearing down power lines and that information should instead go into the introduction of this article. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete introduction

The sentence 'The ice from the freezing rain built up on tree branches and added so much weight to some of them that they fell off and some of them tore down power lines.' belongs in the introduction, not the 'Ontario' subsection. It would be better to mention the total number of people who went without power in the introduction and just the number of people in Toronto who went without power in the Ontario section. Maybe the total number of people who lost power should be mentioned in the introduction and the number of people in Ontario, not Toronto who lost power should be listed in the Ontario subsection. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'll move it to the proper section, also get some info on the Ontario residents without power. ///EuroCarGT 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it doesn't say anywhere in the article how the ice storm lost power to so many residents. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add that! I'll look into it as well. ///EuroCarGT 00:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Customers versus Residents

It is important to distinguish between "customers", which are basically billing addresses, and "residents", who are actual people. On average, every customer represents about 2.5 residents. The 300,000 customers that lost power in Toronto would therefore represent about 750,000 people without power.

@173.33.100.15: That is important. I did change that certain text to residents because no source represents them as customer. ///EuroCarGT 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assessment

May I please request someone to request for assessment of this article in Disaster Management, or even better, do it themselves? It would help the article. Thanks. CanadianDude1 (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they are inactive, the page in which lists pages with no assessments is backlogged. So it will take some time. ///EuroCarGT 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

May anyone introduce images of the ice storm on their effects on trees, power lines, etc.? Thanks. CanadianDude1 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons seems to have no storm-related photos except for maps. We'll need to wait for uploading a work found on Flickr or by a bot. ///EuroCarGT 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Title?

Since this article mentions Canada and the US, I think we should rename the article to 2013 North American ice storm/2013 Canada and US ice storm, or something like that. CanadianDude1 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That could be possible. We'll wait for a consensus. ///EuroCarGT 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No deaths in Canada related to freezing rain

There were no deaths in Canada related to freezing rain from this storm. There was 6 traffic related deaths in Quebec but none were from freezing rain. Since this article is about the "ice storm" that struck "Central and Eastern Canada" none of the none ice storm related deaths or deaths in the US should be counted in this article unless the article is renamed and restructured. 70.53.73.73 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. We are waiting on a consensus for a new title. CanadianDude1 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here because of a bot notice on the RfC. Wikipedia has several articles on the 2013 storms. If you want this article to remain focused mainly on the storm phenomenon in the Central and Eastern areas of Canada, I'd leave as is. If the article is meant to cover the North American continent, then I'd first look at articles already created and see if you can merge content as perhaps this one October 2013 North American storm complex, and then perhaps rename the merged articles. I'd first get that sorted amongst the editors here and then maybe you won't need an RfC. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible move

I would suggest moving this article to December 2013 North American ice storm or Mid-December 2013 North American ice storm if the former is not specific enough. My reasoning here is that this ice storm also impacted parts of the United States; it was greatly publicized by the media, and I myself remember it. Dustin talk 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! This name is more specific, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to make the move myself. Dustin talk 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locations Impacted

This only refers to the northern impacts of the ice storm, but I m almost certain that this same storm system produced an ice storm in the Central United States (by both latitude and longitude, albeit somewhat more on the southern side) in Oklahoma and possibly nearby areas. Some of these places received over 3/4 an inch of ice. Here are some sources:

I think some parts of Kansas and/or Missouri were impacted by this same storm as well, but I could not find as many sources, and the impacts don't appear to have been as significant. I think that this is enough evidence. Dustin talk 19:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma may well have been affected by the same system. We could wait for a consensus to see if we should add the info or not. |CanadianDude1| 16:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of this information. |CanadianDude1| 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:December 2013 North American ice storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. I'll post comments as I read.

The first thing I notice is that the article's introduction is dreadfully short, and provides next to no information about the event. An ideal introduction should summarize the entire article.
The "synopsis" section (which should be renamed either "meteorological history", "storm history", or "synoptic history") requires a total overhaul and expansion. The first sentence is incomprehensible, for example.
where forecasts of lower temperatures caused ice accumulation - how could a forecast of low temperatures cause ice to accumulate?
The associated warm front, which ran from Texas to Toronto and the extreme north of New York and New England, had been almost stationary for two days. - neither of the given sources support this statement, and it seems quite misleading in any case. Surely a warm front that had been station for two days would be better classified a stationary front...?
What were the conditions that resulted in the genesis of this storm system? Where were the surrounding synoptic features? Sources like this from NESDIS (and ideally other NOAA/NCEP products) should be utilized.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that this article would be better suited for a complete rewrite than a GA nomination. Presently it fails multiple GA criterion, including depth of coverage, verifiability, clarity of prose, and proper structure. I haven't made it beyond the first few paragraphs, but it is clear to me that the article requires far more improvements than I'm able to suggest here. Sorry. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Include snowstorm and severe weather, as well as possible move

I think it may be best if we move this article to "December 2013 North American storm complex" and add additional info regarding the severe weather associated with this as well as the snowstorm. Some may be thinking no, but I have seen the article Early Winter 2006 North American storm complex, and it has stated that it had a variety of severe weather with it, including a snowstorm, a crippling ice storm, and a tornado outbreak, very similar to what this system produced. Thoughts? --MarioProtIV (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on December 2013 North American storm complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]