The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics
Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from June 1–July 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) .
Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here.
Hurricane Barry was the wettest tropical storm on record in Arkansas, and one of only four hurricanes to strike Louisiana in July. Originating from a trough over the southeastern United States, Barry formed on July 11 off the southeast Louisiana coast. Despite wind shear and an asymmetrical structure, the storm intensified into a minimal hurricane before making landfall near Intracoastal City, Louisiana. Barry dropped heavy rainfall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Ohio Valley, peaking at 23.43 in (595 mm) near Ragley, Louisiana. The storm caused flooding rains, power outages, and one death due to rip currents. Damage totaled over US$500 million.
Since the last newsletter, 18 other systems have formed worldwide, in addition to Barry.
In the Western Pacific, Tropical Storm Sepat in June passed near Japan and was classified as a subtropical storm by the JTWC. In early July, Tropical Storm Mun killed two people when it struck Vietnam. Tropical Storm Danas formed near the Philippines and moved northward, later crossing the Korean peninsula. Toward the end of July, Tropical Storm Nari moved across Japan as a tropical depression, and Tropical Storm Wipha struck southern China. There were also three tropical depressions, one of which the JTWC classified as a tropical storm.
Cyclone Vayu was a powerful cyclone that threatened western India, but stalled and weakened significantly before moving ashore. The storm killed eight people, and lashed western India with heavy rainfall and high tides.
New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in June/July 2019
More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in May 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned.
To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions!
Current assessment table
Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics. As of this issue, there are 152 featured articles and 70 featured lists. There are 142 A-class articles, but that number is subject to change, depending if we mandate that all A-class articles have an A-class review first. There are 961 good articles, meaning it is possible we get to our 1000th GA by the end of the year. There are only 62 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 363 C-class articles, 717 start-class articles, and 141 stub-class articles, with 26 lists and 9 current articles. The number of lists may decrease further as the "Tropical cyclone X" articles continue to be reclassified as set index articles. These figures mean that more than half of the project is rated a GA or better - including the lists/current/future articles, there are 1283 articles that are below GA status, versus 1325 that are GA or better.
Reports, bulletins, and other products issued by Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers are the authoritative source on meteorological information pertaining to tropical cyclones in their respective basins. This includes both quantitative and qualitative information about a storm's characteristics, including intensities, durations, and locations. The most recent post-storm assessments take precedence over operational data. Thus, post-season revisions to a storm's "best track" file, new information presented in a tropical cyclone report, or official database adjustments made by the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project, or other official reanalyses supersede operational information where they disagree. Data in operational RSMC products can still be used if later data does not dispute them. Information from other public agencies can also be used, but generally require in-text attribution. While the original best track data from meteorological agencies is a reliable source and can be referenced, readers often find difficulty interpreting them. Consider using IBTrACS, a more easily understandable track database, which is endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), for this information. Because the Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System (ATCF) used by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and National Hurricane Center is liable to change frequently in realtime, they should not be used for currently active storms. Forecasts from these agencies and RSMCs should only be used to cite the forecasts themselves; in other words, they can only be used to describe what was expected to occur, and never to describe what did occur.
Maps and other graphics published by meteorological agencies may be used to describe events (see the associated essay). However, they should only be referenced if they are explicit in conveying the supported information and do not require any rigorous meteorological interpretation (such as satellite analysis or drawing conclusions over what the arrangement of meteorological features represents). In general, self-published sources should not be used as sources for present or historical storm intensities. However, information contained in articles from reliable sources or commentary from established tropical cyclone experts can be used as sources for information not covered by WMO-endorsed agencies. If such sources dispute WMO-endorsed meteorological data, commentary on the disputed information may be used, making sure to attribute claims and giving due weight.
Storm effects are typically referenced with a wide array of published sources. These may include news organizations, risk assessment organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), government agencies, and impact databases. So long as they are reliable sources, they can be used as references for tropical cyclone impacts. Note that figures from early impact reports, often disseminated by the first NGO situation reports and news reports, may quickly be outdated in light of newer information. When sourcing damage totals or casualty figures, use the most recent value from a reliable source, as these values tend to be more stable and use more up-to-date information. If such figures are disputed by other reliable sources, this should be noted in the article, making sure to attribute claims and giving due weight. Routine calculations of damage and casualty figures (for instance, adding casualties from different countries) are acceptable as long as they arise from reliable sources.
Latest WikiProject Alerts
The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here.
On August 26, 2005, User:CrazyC83 created an article for Hurricane Katrina after the legendary storm crossed over southern Florida. By two days later, there were 500 edits to the article, and the hurricane was threatening to hit New Orleans as a Category 4 or 5. We now know it was “only” a Category 3 at landfall. In the 14 years since Katrina, there have been 6,327 editors to the Hurricane Katrina article, along with 23 sub-articles. During the 2005 season, there were debates among editors whether lesser notable storms, like Hurricane Cindy (2005), should have articles. At one point in 2006, there were articles for every named storm during the 2005 AHS, but in the 13 years since then, articles for tropical storms Franklin, Harvey, and Lee, and Philippe were created and merged. As a way to coordinate edits among the tropical cyclone pages, User:Jdorje created Template:Hurricane on September 12, 2005. This is the same template that appears on the talk pages for every article in the WPTC. On October 5, Jdorje officially created WP:WPTC, the tropical cycloneWikiProject. That October, in quick succession, the Atlantic hurricane seasons reached back to the beginning of recordkeeping (before 1600s) due to a collaboration of several editors; User:RattleMan created the first season article for the North Indian Ocean; User:Miss Madeline successfully nominated List of California hurricanes for featured list; and Jdorje created a a standardized storm path template.
In 2006, a series of users improved articles worldwide to featured article status. Professional met David Roth joined the project, and in the same year, the NOAA and NHC copied some material from Wikipedia, including track maps, and the Tropical Cyclone Report for Tropical Storm Chris (2006). In June 2006, User:Nilfanion created the project assessment page, which documents the status of every article, organized by basin, the year, and storm shaded by the quality. On August 1, the chat room on IRC for the project was created, which allowed real-time communication among editors. There’s something special about conversing with fellow weather geeks during an epic storm, which seems to have become all the more common. On January 1, 2007, the number of good articles in the project reached 100. On January 29th, a collaboration of users made the List of retired Pacific hurricane names the first featured topic in the project. It was joined by the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season in March 2007.
In 2008, further collaborations helped make the article for tropical cyclone a featured article, one of 100 FA’s in the project. Notably among project members, Tropical Storm Erick (2007) became featured on December 14, 2008. The storm lasted for a short amount of time over open waters, and as such, it was the shortest featured article anywhere on Wikipedia. Users questioned whether the storm was notable enough to have such a detailed article, but the article described the storm in articulate detail. After an AFD and two featured article review (and a series of low-notability storms being merged), Erick was delisted as a featured article on March 2, 2013.
In the period from 2008 to 2013, users created task forces for various basins, articles for all of the seasons in the Atlantic and EPAC, and enough high-quality articles that more than half of all storm/season articles were good or featured articles. In January 2008, there were 1000 articles in the entire project. On January 1, 2014, User:Yellow Evan created Typhoon Nancy (1982), which was the 2000th article in the project. In October 2008, there were 100 FA’s in the project, which reached 200 on November 28, 2015, with Hurricane Fay (2014). By March 2016, every basin had at least 100 storm articles, multiple featured articles, and season articles of various quality.
This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019. From June 1–July 31, 2019, one featured article and one featured list was promoted:
An awards program for the project began on May 31. It involves 25 levels that may be gained by earning points for completing various actions such as getting good or featured articles. Additional awards will be added in the future.
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).