Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Juan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHurricane Juan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 10, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
October 29, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
February 27, 2023Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Todo

[edit]

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

Images section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Failed GA nomination

[edit]

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

Preparations

[edit]

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.[reply]

GA nom

[edit]

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)[reply]

Everything is referenced now. CrazyC83 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, better. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects outside of canada

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

What the heck?

[edit]

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

cat?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Death by county

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Which version is valid?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The text of the TCR states landfall between Peggys Cove and Prospect, Nova Scotia; which are both in HRM (which is a funny entity..._--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Clarification re currency

[edit]

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$? Peter Grey 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"(2003 USD)" should make it clear. – Chacor 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant whether 2003 USD is correct. The site provided is a Canadian site, so I would actually assume 200 million C$. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Landfall

[edit]

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 . [1] --3250445 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

White Juan

[edit]

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)[reply]

Work needed

[edit]

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. 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) 23:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Juan. 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) 08:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. 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) 06:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. 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) 19:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

[edit]

This older FA needs a good bit of work to get back to WP:FACR. I've tagged several uncited statements. In addition, this article does not comprehensively draw on the scholarly literature. It relies very heavily on the National Hurricane Center and Environment Canada, but does not use the scholarly literature available on this topic. Sources below I accessed freely through The Wikipedia Library:

Or from Google Scholar

There is quite a bit more, the above is only a sampling. As the scholarly literature about this storm is currently not used, WP:FACR #1c is not met, and I have some potential 1b concerns, as well. A featured article review will likely be needed here. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have these sources been evaluated for their inclusion in the article? If not, this article might be nominated for WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Vaulter 18:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hurricane Juan → Hurricane Juan (2003) – Given how Vongfong 2020 wasn’t the PTOPIC due to higher pageviews and retirement in spite of less impact, this is similar. Juan 1985 caused more deaths and damage and even though this has higher pageviews, that doesn’t determine PTOPIC. As such there is no primary topic. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:55, 27 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Juan&oldid=1211227116"