Talk:Hurricane recovery in North Carolina

Final Wikipedia Project Evaluation (April 23, 2012)

Emplanning (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Section

Peer Review The introduction gave good background information on North Carolina and why hurricanes are such a large threat to Eastern North Carolina. the article seems to be organized simply, easy to follow and easy to obtain information. There aren't any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors after reviewing the articles edit page. all resources are reliable in my opinion' even outside articles are retrieved from a creditable sources. All content is placed appropriately in this article towards explaining the topic of this article which is Hurricane Recovery of North Carolina. If any information was irrelevant, it would be the information about the hockey team; i feel as if it added extra insight about North Carolina. The only thing that stands out is the names that are in the beginning of each section, which i'm sure will be fixed.JosASamuels (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Peer Review The Hurricane Recovery in North Carolina article provided in depth information in terms of the effects hurricanes can have on the coastal regions of North Carolina while explaining why hurricane recovery is necessary in coastal areas. However, the information is a little disorganized. The hurricane effects and recovery information provided in the Recovery Methods and Implementation section seems to be more like information to be included within the introduction for a hurricane recovery article. Also, the information provided in terms of recovery methods seems to be targeting mitigation as opposed to recovery, such as setbacks, beach maintenance, and hazard mitigation. May I suggest, focusing more on post hurricane clean up efforts and providing additional information on the land acquisition mentioned in the article. Creating an additional section towards the end of article, which discusses recovery methods utilized following hurricane impacts in North Carolina, might be beneficial.

In terms of content, the recovery agencies section provided a comprehensive list of federal and state agencies, which provide assistance in terms of hurricane recovery. However, the section did not provide information regarding what form of assistance some of the federal organizations or agencies provide for hurricane recovery. For instance, the recovery agencies section did not provide recovery assistance information for the agriculture agencies, business/workforce agencies, or environment agencies. Providing additional information in terms of what kind of assistance the agencies provide, would be beneficial to the content of the article. In addition to the recovery agencies section, the funding for recovery section provided a list of amounts to be distributed to specific departments. However, the section fails to incorporate information regarding what recovery assistance the money is going to be utilized to fund. For instance, providing information in terms of what recovery assistance the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency provides would be beneficial to understanding recovery funding.

The article also has a few spelling errors. When discussing the detailed instructions for recovery agencies in the state level plans and policies, the word "search" has an "r" missing. In the environmental impact and recovery section, the word "normally" following the decomposition of oxygen material has the "y" missing. The section also has grammatical errors. When referring to hypoxia, there should be an "of" between the words "periods" and "hypoxia". Also when referring to Hurricane Hugo making landfall in Carolina, the statement should read "over the Carolinas" not "of the Carolinas". In addition to spelling and grammatical errors, the article also contains reference errors. Although the references used in the article are certified cites, such as books, government websites, and journal and newspaper articles, the last four references are incorrectly cited. The last four references, which are journal articles, are only cited by url. I recommend correcting the reference citations by using the wikipedia journal article citation example to reformat them. Overall, I enjoyed reading the article because hurricanes are prominent disasters in the coastal regions of North Carolina and a wikipedia article discussing hurricane recovery would be beneficial to North Carolina researchers. I hope the peer review assists the group in improving the article to reach good article status.--Patrickj05 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Review By: Alexis Miles The article is put together very well and when reading it it’s easy to understand what information is to come next. It was very helpful to see things organized into the vertical emergency management system, with the division of federal, state, and local level policies and agencies. The introduction of this article was well put together, however it could have gave a little more insight into what the reader is about to read in each section. I felt that parts of the introduction were a little too vague and could have given a little more information about the article as a whole. There were very few grammatical and spelling errors. For example in the sentence talking about state agencies that provide support for NC transportation and infrastructure there should be a “and” put between NC Department of Transportation and NCEM. I also think that NCEM should be spelled out and not left as an acronym. Most of the references are reliable and come from really legitimate sources. Some of the links are difficult to access and should be taken out. One good thing is that this group has lots of sources so they can afford to lose a few that are not good references. The references after number 20 need to be organized and sorted through for reliability. The article has lots of content however I feel as though something is missing. The economic recovery section needs to be expanded on. It seems to be lacking in content compared to the other sections and parts of it are not clear. It also needs references because I don’t see any links in this section. I don’t think the article has irrelevant material. Everything discussed seems to relate to the topic. Some sections need to be expanded on. I think that overall this article meets the good article status. It is well-written and the facts are verifiable. Its tone is neutral and the content addresses the main topics but doesn’t stray from the focus of the article. The only thing I think is missing is images and the references that go with them. --Milesa09 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Emplanning (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Midterm Wikipedia Assignment Comments

Jack's Group:
Article structure is well organized. Good work in putting together the citations, though I see only about 10 references. Please make sure to have adequate citations from library sources (journal articles and books) for all sections. Your article will lose points without good references to back up your writing.

I also see a number of inaccuracies in the section contents. In particular, the section on 'Funding for Recovery' uses data from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This stimulus funding is for economic recovery, different from funding sources for disaster recovery (which is appropriated by Congress and disbursed through FEMA). Content accuracy will be very important in your final article, so do get your information sources and references correct.

REMEMBER, the next part of your assignment will be graded individually, so make sure that everyone logs in and does writing on Wikipedia. I am looking forward to the first draft as you guys flesh it out.

(Emplanning (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

Student Section

Hey guys, Just wanted to test out starting the talk page, Joesph mentioned we should go ahead and begin getting five sources each. I think that is a good idea since we will be graded on having around 20 sources. The outline and references are due on March 1st. I still think six headers with about two paragraphs each would work well. [ Agencies responsible for implementation, Recovery plans and policy, Environmental impact and rebuilding (3 paragraphs), Planning and Development Recovery (one paragraph), and funding. (That is only five).] Like I noted, we could delegate more paragraphs to a section that would likely have more info and less to one that we would probably find less research on. I think we should each be kind of going in a direction for research so that we do not all end up with the same five great sources. Let me know what you all think about assigning topics to find sources for and what topics we each would want to do. Please feel free to add topics to the ones I suggested! Thanks! Mstewartj (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack's, I completely agree with the direction we've began to develop. March 1st is going to get here fairly quickly and we have to have some other things completed for that date. That being said, I think we should try and meet on Tuesday or during the day Thursday (if the assignment is due @ midnight) and go over what we've gathered individually. I really can't meet on Wednesday b/c I have class/meetings from 1-9pm. I could meet Tue. after 330 or Thursday from 1230-230 or 4-6. I think it would really help us organize our work and make sure we don't have anything redundant. As far as the actual project I like the 5 topics Stewart previously mentioned. My only worry is that Recovery plans and policy, and rebuilding are to similar to Planning and Development Recovery. We could have a section on past hurricanes and anything that was innovative or unsuccessful in their recovery. I think funding can be 2 paragraphs b/c we could talk about State programs and their funding, as well as Federal programs and what it takes to receive these funds. I would also like to volunteer to work on the environmental impact section and another subject that people don't want. We could also maybe add in a section on non-profit groups and the role they play in recovery. Not sure if there is a lot of research on their impact but it could at least be added in somewhere. Let me know what you guys think about meeting prior to the due date and what times would work for y'all. Thanks. --Moym11 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few sites that I thought would be helpful and interesting to view:

http://southeastfarmpress.com/government/north-carolina-offers-hurricane-hotline-growers

http://www.ncagr.gov

http://outerbanksvoice.com/tag/hurricane-irene/

http://www.blandgazette.net/news-server1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14090:coastal-management-offers-emergency-cama-permit-for-hurricane-recovery-tips-for-helping-speed-up-permit-process&catid=1:local-news&itemid=69

http://www.townofedenton.com/vertical/sites/{AA7D8BD6-6E10-4D3C-9388-D6F02FC8CD39}/uploads/FS_Hurricane_Irene_Recovery_Update_Sept_12_2011_2_.pdf

http://fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9175

http://www.nfipiservice.com/stakeholder/pdf/bulletin/w-11115.txt

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=20565

I am able to meet Monday and tuesday after 5, wednesday all day, and Thursday after 12:15 but I will be leaving for Tennessee that thursday evening so the sooner we could meet on that day would be best for me. Also we could talk about a more enviornmental view of hurricane effects that North Carolina would have to deal with such as How the forests are affected, how the continental shelf is affected, and how the aquatic life is affected by hurricanes. Just some more ideas to be thrown into the mix, I am open for anything. Although if we did choose a paragraph on environmental damage and recovery i would like to do the research for it. Thanks. --Atkinsonb08 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting back guys! The outline will not have to be long, and I feel once we have a definite selection of the topics we will be golden for that. I think the 22 sources will be the more time consuming part. Matt, I agree the Planning Development and recovery will be similar to the recovery plans and policy. Good catch. I was thinking development recovery as in the moratoriums we found that day researching in the libraray, but we could just add that into the plans and policy section. I agree for the fudning include state and federal. The non-profit is a great idea, would we want to include that into the agencies section? Byron: we did suggest to include the environmental impact as a section, but Matt also volunteered for that in his post, so you guys may want to post back about making it two serpearte environmental topics( impact and then rebuilding?) or however you two would like to decide. We will obviously need to do the outline together, unless just one of us does it. But we can do the sources indivdually if we delegate the headings. Unless we add another header, this is the basic of our page; Agencies- (four paragrapghs-federal,state,local,non-profit) Recovery plans and policy-(two paragraphs) Environmental impact and rebuilding-(I think if matt or byron just rolled with it we could have four paragraphs on it? maybe the hurricane history you both mentioned in here as one of the paragraphs?) Funding- (Two paragraphs-state and local) As is- this would be twelve paragraphs. and four headers, which would work out nicely if we each were responsible for one section? Let me know if you think this is fair? If we agree to that then we would each just be responsible to finding the five sources prior to meeting before the deadline. As for meeting, tuesday after five seems to work for both matt and byron, and I say sooner the better so that is my vote! Thanksss! Mstewartj (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually have something I have to do Tuesday @ 6pm until probably 7 or 730. I would still be willing to meet after that if you guys would want. I know that's a bit late and y'all might not live near campus. We don't have to meet in the library though if you guys think the meeting would be more of a delegation and outlining session, rather than doing actual research. The other option would be to meet today around 8pm. Sorry these are late times but my schedule just keeps getting more and more full haha. Also, has anyone got ahold of Joe about when he would be able to meet? Let me know about the meeting.--Moym11 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys! I have some new sources and I think a better direction for my section with help from the Reference desk at joyner. If you guys are still looking for some good info just send them an email about a consultation. They are super helpful. Hopefully I will have the stuff they have directed me towards more put together for Sunday! Byron set up a meeting for Sunday, see you all there! Just wanted to let you know about their help. Mstewartj (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey- Just a few things we need to keep in mind this last week before the draft is due on the 9th..Refer to the wiki article structure standards to know we are doing it correctly, Read the article quality criteria: we must meet B-class, if we make our article of current or future section of grading we will receive extra credit. We need to reformat the references and add to them, we do not have enough. She said in class the Aces did a good job, but their edit section is blank so I don't know how to do it that way but we should each update the references we used! (I did figure it out, refer to comment two below) )Her comments noted we need to have adequate citations for each section. Some sections may need to add more references than others, and a final tip- keep in mind we have to have a total of 12 paragraphs in the article! Good work so far! Mstewartj (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On the North Carolina Disaster Recovery Guide, which I am using for Plans and Policy you all may be able to use some info from it as well. Joe- You may want to look at the SDRT and pages 35-40 Matt-43-51 and Byron-55-62 66.76.239.179 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the Lead Section just to catch your attention, we need to develop that before the draft as well, i'd be happy to give the wording a shot, but I am slow catching onto the editing styles. I think the Lead section can replace the introduction. You can read more about it on the Emplanning page..but it is an overview of what the article covers, if you think to when you use wiki, you usually get what you really needed to know without having to scroll through the sections. It is also noted that it should begin with a declarative statement including our title, my post was my attempt to make that work. I also figured out how to do the Aces style references. The example is the hurricane act of 2005 as 1 in my state section. In order for it show up on the the list you have to insert it in the section in the manner that I did using This is why if you look at the aces section one part has all the number but no words, because that person turned in their sources with the outline but didn't have their research to post yet. It is an easy fix we just have to have the sources properly cited and then copy paste is all thats needed! Sorry for all the posts I just want to explain it all as I mess with it Mstewartj (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the redundant citations under the references, however we may need reformat our references to be wiki references as the third correction option she suggested. But we can only do this once all the citations are added. I also already changed the header for the last part to see also. Thanks! Mstewartj (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add an image to my section, but I really couldn't figure out the JPEG part! Im sorry! I also sent an email about mainspace! Mstewartj (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was able to add an image to the wiki so it doesn't look so lacking. Joe and Byron you probably want to go over your sections and pay attention to the peer review comments and what Dr. Mukherji wrote. As it is right now our article is still not up to the standards to be put on main space. Also, someone needs to do something with the random citation at the bottom, I believe it is your's Byron. Not sure when work is done being accepted for the project but it might be today. I will email this info also. --Moym11 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia style

For this to be a Wikipedia article, attention must be paid to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It appears that this article was written without regard to Wikipedia style. I have cleaned up the headings and acronyms (WP:HEAD, WP:ACRONYM), removed repeated links and boldfacing (WP:REPEATLINK, WP:BOLDFACE). Even the title of the article does not follow Wikipedia style per WP:NAME. I will change that next. I trust that editors will take a look at WP:MOS and begin to learn how to edit in a style that is consistent with how Wikipedia articles are to be written. Ground Zero | t 21:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

An interesting article here, but not much of it is NC-specific. For example, every state has an emergency management agency, gets funding from FEMA, whatnot. Perhaps merge with List of North Carolina hurricanes, since that article also covers broad aspects of North Carolnia hurricanes (at least, not related to the hockey team). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "FEMA workers threatened in NC"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Federal disaster workers paused and then changed some of their hurricane-recovery efforts in North Carolina, including abandoning door-to-door visits, after receiving threats that they could be targeted by a militia, officials said, as the government response to Helene is targeted by runaway disinformation.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://apnews.com/article/fema-threats-disaster-workers-rutherford-county-armed-militia-dbb6b5727eaa12e79f307bf38a4b6256

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=FEMA workers change some hurricane-recovery efforts in North Carolina after receiving threats |url=https://apnews.com/article/fema-threats-disaster-workers-rutherford-county-armed-militia-dbb6b5727eaa12e79f307bf38a4b6256 |website=AP News |date=2024-10-14 |access-date=2024-10-14 |language=en |quote=RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Federal disaster workers paused and then changed some of their hurricane-recovery efforts in North Carolina, including abandoning door-to-door visits, after receiving threats that they could be targeted by a militia, officials said, as the government response to Helene is targeted by runaway disinformation.}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

TJMSmith (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)