Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Ivan/archive1

Hurricane Ivan edit

Another article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones for review. This article had a previous FAC almost a year ago, but has been completely overhauled since then. It overall conforms to the guidelines set by the WikiProject, but still needs outside review for a second FAC run. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a recovery section. The information is out there we just need to stick it up there. Also the storm history section could be trimmed a tad. I'll get to work on the recovery section. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. An aftermath section in general would be useful. The storm history should only be one section, not broken up like it is. Hurricanehink 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rough draft done, but I need to find some specific numbers, if they're out there. If they're not, then my draft could probably go in with minimal changes. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, another is that you have the damage totals, but you don't have it state by state. Hurricanehink 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where, on the page? I was talking about my recovery section, which I don't think you've seen. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were referring to problems in general. Nah, I haven't seen it yet. Do you have a link for it? Hurricanehink 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, references need to be found for all those {{fact}}s around the article; also, the table has to be shrunk or truncated, a la Hurricane Katrina. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table has been shrunk, which is good, but also important is to restructure it to give more emphasis on direct deaths. In the current table you can find out how many total deaths there were in florida, but the (more important) number of direct deaths in florida is not shown anywhere. — jdorje (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it is there. Total deaths in Florida = 19, direct deaths in Florida = 14. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to say you cannot find out how many direct deaths there are in the United States (except by adding each entry). — jdorje (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find much in the way of numbers for my recovery section and I'm now just trying to make it more neutral. I should be able to post it tomorrow or Friday. I've been kind of busy with homework and stuff. However, I see no reason to delay the posting of the section much longer while we look for numbers that may not be there. So, if anyone has better luck with those numbers, hats off to them. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn school work! :) Personally, I don't think the Ivan article is close enough. Ivan still has too many organization problems and still doesn't have an aftermath. If it were to go to FAC, I would have to vote no based on how it is. The storm history should only be 1 section, not 4 subsections. Information there should be condensed and moved elsewhere to flow better. For example, move anything about rain to the impact section- that's why it's there. Possibly remove one of the pictures from the storm history, and maybe move it elsewhere. Maybe there should be a records section. That could include it being the lowest latitude Category 4, Cat. 5 information, and Hydrological Records. More citations are needed, like in the preparations section. How do we know that 500,000 Jamaicans were told to evacuate? Also, should the speculation about Katrina be there? The death table needs to be redone. Like Jdorje said, it should focus on the direct deaths. The table, in my opinion, should go in order of where Ivan struck, not alphabetically. It would go Barbados, Grenada, Tobago, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, then the U.S. states. Eric, you can use some of the Grenada impact section for the aftermath section if you want; there's info about international aid that shouldn't be in the impact. Like I said about the death table, the impact section should go in geographical order. Perhaps start with a Leewards Island section, followed by a Grenada subsection? More info should be found on meteorological information on the islands... I'm sure you can find more on Jamaica. You should add some damage figures as well. The TCR has a lot of information not in the article yet, including damage figures ($1.85 billion in Caymans, $815 million in Grenada) or actual damage (47,000 damaged homes in Jamaica, for example). The USA section should be broken up by state, if possible. There's simply too much to do for Ivan right now. I think we should make Ivan a Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight, or even restart the article on a user page. That way, we can find all of the sources, and it should be easier in general. We should withdraw the peer review, given that no one's seen it other than us, and I think, in my own biased opinion, that we should focus on Mitch. That article has sources for everything, impact broken up by area, and only needs an aftermath section. What does everyone think? Hurricanehink 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has an aftermath section, just not a recovery section. Also, the changes aren't as simple as you describe. Let's be storm specific here: Ivan last 24 days so there's going to be a helluva lot of storm history to it. Also, Ivan's incredible regeneration deserves its own sub-section. Therefore, we just need to go through it and remove the unnessesary facts. It flows really well the way it is now. We might want to try a copyedit to review the entire article. I really like Ivan article and will work to improve it. I personally think that it's quite ready to be an FA but apparently other people don't. Since it's just a lot of little things, I don't think anything drastic or time-consuming needs to be done. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see why Ivan's storm history should be different from every other's. It can be 4-5 paragraphs, maybe more, but, IMO, it doesn't flow at all and is too long. You are right, there's a lot of unnecessary facts, but if you trim it down, it could flow really well with, say, 4 paragraphs. The first could be formation to Category 4 status, then its track through the Caribbean, then GOM to landfall to becoming extratropical, then Ivan's return. The changes I suggested are just things that need to be done. Compare Ivan to Floyd, an existing FA. That is what I think Ivan should be like. The impact section should be doubled, if not tripled in size, because that is the most important part of a typical hurricane article. Some sections are too short, and would require a lot of work. Hurricanehink 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually liked the way the storm section was divided, as all the sections in the article are long, and trimming it would disrupt the balance. If there's any section I would get rid of is the Hydrological records section, which can be merged in the storm history. I'd say that the Impact does need a bit more information, but I'm not really able to help much, as I'm beginning final exams now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! The hydrological records, as I said above, should be part of a records section. Hurricanehink 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The storms section shouldn't include information that's not related to the synoptic history of the storm, but ivan might still have enough to justify subsections here if the section becomes too long (I think it was probably me who added the subsections). One example of an article that has unrelated information however is Hurricane Wilma - that storm history does need to be trimmed/reorganized. — jdorje (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]