![]() | 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is the main article in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was copied or moved into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
The article is very well written and quite an interesting read. I believe it meets the Good Article criteria with one major exception. The 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' has no externally verifiable sources whatsoever. It's sole "source", is a wikilink to a subpage of the article's talk page, which outlines calculations that were done, apparently by the wikipedia author him/herself. This unfortunately is original research, and goes against wikipedia's policy, as well as the Good Article criteria. Valid external sources need to be added for this information, as well as for the second paragraph which talks about the calculated average in comparison to other hurricane seasons. The article cannot be passed until this is resolved.
There's another manual of style issue as well, though minor. The date wikilinking is incorrect. According to the manual of style, only full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked, so as to work properly with user's individual date preference settings. Single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked. I don't think there's any single years, but there are many month/day combinations wikilinked throughout the article that should be resolved.
Other than these two issues (one major and one minor), the article is in good shape and can be promoted to GA status once they are resolved. I'll place this article on hold in the meantime. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does zeta really need it's own section? I plan on bringing this to PR by the end of the month, and don't think it does. Juliancolton ( talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.
This is a good seasonal article, but it needs some more work before being considered good.
--♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Storm name |
Dates active | Storm
category
at peak intensity |
Max wind (mph) |
Min. press. ( mbar) |
Landfall(s) | Damage (millions USD) |
Deaths | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Where | When | Wind
(mph) | ||||||||
Alberto | June 10– 14 | Tropical storm | 70 | 995 | Adams Beach, Florida | June 13 | 40 | 0.42 | 0 (3) | |
Unnamed | July 17– 18 | Tropical storm | 50 | 998 | none | 0 | 0 | |||
Beryl | July 18– 21 | Tropical storm | 60 | 1000 | Nantucket, Massachusetts | July 21 | 45 | minimal | 0 | |
Chris | July 31– August 5 | Tropical storm | 65 | 1001 | none | minimal | 0 | |||
Debby | August 21– August 26 | Tropical storm | 50 | 999 | none | none | 0 | |||
Ernesto | August 24– September 1 | Category 1 hurricane | 75 | 985 | Playa Cazonal, Cuba | August 28 | 50 | 500 | 7 (4) | |
Plantation Key, Florida | August 30 | 50 | ||||||||
Miami-Dade county, Florida | August 30 | 50 | ||||||||
Oak Island, North Carolina | September 31 | 70 | ||||||||
Florence | September 3– September 12 | Category 1 hurricane | 90 | 974 | none | 0.2 | 0 | |||
Gordon | September 11– September 20 | Category 3 hurricane | 120 | 955 | none | Unknown | 0 | |||
Helene | September 12– September 24 | Category 3 hurricane | 120 | 955 | none | 0 | 0 | |||
Isaac | September 27– October 2 | Category 1 hurricane | 85 | 985 | none | minimal | 0 | |||
Season Aggregates | ||||||||||
10 cyclones | June 10– October 2 | 120 | 955 | 6 landfalls | 500 | 7 (7) |
This was just nominated for GA again, but the WP:OR issue with the 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' still remains. The source for this is not a valid source -- it's a talk page to a wikipedia article, for calculations that were done. There needs to be a reliable source for this independent of this article. Without it, this is clearly original research, and the article cannot pass GA with original research, per WP:WIAGA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see where the ACE is in the source, which seems ok. But the numbers that you're providing in the wikitable do not all agree with the numbers in the source; several agree, but several don't, and you're not rounding correctly. Plus, you have data for an unnamed storm and no data for Isaac.
Also, you should have a source on the text paragraph in the ACE section, defining what it is you're talking about, in addition to the table. The citation should preferably be in inline format, so that it appears in the 'references' section. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Q
Q
Q
Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.
Pass
Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.[2]
Pass
Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.
Pass
Written from a neutral point of view.
Pass
Article is stable, with no active edit wars.
Pass
If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.
Pass
Overall
Pass
Reviewed by TheNobleSith ( talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What's with the intro to this article? And why is the font red? I'm not sure how to fix this, but please, someone do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSoko315 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the page has been hacked! TorstenGuise ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism was in {{ Infobox hurricane season}}. -- RattleMan 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I undid the process once in the history, but then it disappeared, and so did my undoing. I'm confused. However, it appears the page is fixed, so that's good. Robert ( talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this is me being stupid, but in the death column, why are some numbers in brackets? -- 194.81.189.42 ( talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This recent edit put some 60 words describing, generically, the limits of hurricane seasons. Although the sentence's last two clauses contained information specific to the 2006 season, this is not an effective way to begin the article. I've moved the generic info back down, allowing information specific to the 2006 season to rise. PRRfan ( talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this link for inclusion: 2006 Hurricanes - Hurricane tracker Bodaonline ( talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead paragraph, if not the entire intro, of any article should include information specific to the article's subject. A generic definition of the dates of the hurricane season does not belong. If you believe that the tail end of 2005's Zeta deserves mention in the very first paragraph, you might try leading your sentence with that, rather than the definition; e.g., "The 2006 season also included Zeta, which stretched from December 2005 into January 2006." PRRfan ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Same rationale as 2009. The information is duplicated and redundant between this article and the list article. The list article is not featured, so it should not be a major issue merging that, and I don't think the fact this is featured should preclude the merging. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, it's done. I'll be taking this to GT now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the merge has been done, and that the merged content is adequately referenced. However, one thing was considerably changed from the List of Storms article was Zeta. It originally was in the Storms section, and now it is a passing mention in the season summary. That strikes me as odd, considering that Zeta was not really part of the season per se. Shouldn't it be in the storms section? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fails WP:NWX since there was minimal land impact and no meteorological reasoning for the article. The season article section is quite small and this could be summarized there easily. Noah, AA Talk 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fails WP:NWX since the impact was minimal. The season article, an FA, would improve if this were merged into it since the section there is quite small and lacking. Noah, AA Talk 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Debby only brought minimal impacts to Cape Verde, the only place it affected. Nothing that would establish notability. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Support merge: Not very noteworthy; little coverage or impact, certainly not enough to warrant a standalone article.The season article is the place to tell this storm's story. Drdpw ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
While the storm did have some impact, I feel like much of it falls under WP:ROUTINE since it wasn't severe in nature. The season section (this season article is an FA) is woefully lacking here as well and could use a boost from this article's content. Noah, AA Talk 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is the main article in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was copied or moved into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
The article is very well written and quite an interesting read. I believe it meets the Good Article criteria with one major exception. The 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' has no externally verifiable sources whatsoever. It's sole "source", is a wikilink to a subpage of the article's talk page, which outlines calculations that were done, apparently by the wikipedia author him/herself. This unfortunately is original research, and goes against wikipedia's policy, as well as the Good Article criteria. Valid external sources need to be added for this information, as well as for the second paragraph which talks about the calculated average in comparison to other hurricane seasons. The article cannot be passed until this is resolved.
There's another manual of style issue as well, though minor. The date wikilinking is incorrect. According to the manual of style, only full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked, so as to work properly with user's individual date preference settings. Single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked. I don't think there's any single years, but there are many month/day combinations wikilinked throughout the article that should be resolved.
Other than these two issues (one major and one minor), the article is in good shape and can be promoted to GA status once they are resolved. I'll place this article on hold in the meantime. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does zeta really need it's own section? I plan on bringing this to PR by the end of the month, and don't think it does. Juliancolton ( talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.
This is a good seasonal article, but it needs some more work before being considered good.
--♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Storm name |
Dates active | Storm
category
at peak intensity |
Max wind (mph) |
Min. press. ( mbar) |
Landfall(s) | Damage (millions USD) |
Deaths | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Where | When | Wind
(mph) | ||||||||
Alberto | June 10– 14 | Tropical storm | 70 | 995 | Adams Beach, Florida | June 13 | 40 | 0.42 | 0 (3) | |
Unnamed | July 17– 18 | Tropical storm | 50 | 998 | none | 0 | 0 | |||
Beryl | July 18– 21 | Tropical storm | 60 | 1000 | Nantucket, Massachusetts | July 21 | 45 | minimal | 0 | |
Chris | July 31– August 5 | Tropical storm | 65 | 1001 | none | minimal | 0 | |||
Debby | August 21– August 26 | Tropical storm | 50 | 999 | none | none | 0 | |||
Ernesto | August 24– September 1 | Category 1 hurricane | 75 | 985 | Playa Cazonal, Cuba | August 28 | 50 | 500 | 7 (4) | |
Plantation Key, Florida | August 30 | 50 | ||||||||
Miami-Dade county, Florida | August 30 | 50 | ||||||||
Oak Island, North Carolina | September 31 | 70 | ||||||||
Florence | September 3– September 12 | Category 1 hurricane | 90 | 974 | none | 0.2 | 0 | |||
Gordon | September 11– September 20 | Category 3 hurricane | 120 | 955 | none | Unknown | 0 | |||
Helene | September 12– September 24 | Category 3 hurricane | 120 | 955 | none | 0 | 0 | |||
Isaac | September 27– October 2 | Category 1 hurricane | 85 | 985 | none | minimal | 0 | |||
Season Aggregates | ||||||||||
10 cyclones | June 10– October 2 | 120 | 955 | 6 landfalls | 500 | 7 (7) |
This was just nominated for GA again, but the WP:OR issue with the 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating' still remains. The source for this is not a valid source -- it's a talk page to a wikipedia article, for calculations that were done. There needs to be a reliable source for this independent of this article. Without it, this is clearly original research, and the article cannot pass GA with original research, per WP:WIAGA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see where the ACE is in the source, which seems ok. But the numbers that you're providing in the wikitable do not all agree with the numbers in the source; several agree, but several don't, and you're not rounding correctly. Plus, you have data for an unnamed storm and no data for Isaac.
Also, you should have a source on the text paragraph in the ACE section, defining what it is you're talking about, in addition to the table. The citation should preferably be in inline format, so that it appears in the 'references' section. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Q
Q
Q
Clear prose, including proper spelling, grammar, and clear language. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as spelled out in the areas of the Manual of Style outlined in the Good Article criteria.
Pass
Adequate referencing, preferably with the use of either inline or Harvard citations.[2]
Pass
Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.
Pass
Written from a neutral point of view.
Pass
Article is stable, with no active edit wars.
Pass
If images are used, that they are free images, or if they are copyright, that their use is covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.
Pass
Overall
Pass
Reviewed by TheNobleSith ( talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What's with the intro to this article? And why is the font red? I'm not sure how to fix this, but please, someone do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSoko315 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the page has been hacked! TorstenGuise ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism was in {{ Infobox hurricane season}}. -- RattleMan 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I undid the process once in the history, but then it disappeared, and so did my undoing. I'm confused. However, it appears the page is fixed, so that's good. Robert ( talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this is me being stupid, but in the death column, why are some numbers in brackets? -- 194.81.189.42 ( talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This recent edit put some 60 words describing, generically, the limits of hurricane seasons. Although the sentence's last two clauses contained information specific to the 2006 season, this is not an effective way to begin the article. I've moved the generic info back down, allowing information specific to the 2006 season to rise. PRRfan ( talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this link for inclusion: 2006 Hurricanes - Hurricane tracker Bodaonline ( talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead paragraph, if not the entire intro, of any article should include information specific to the article's subject. A generic definition of the dates of the hurricane season does not belong. If you believe that the tail end of 2005's Zeta deserves mention in the very first paragraph, you might try leading your sentence with that, rather than the definition; e.g., "The 2006 season also included Zeta, which stretched from December 2005 into January 2006." PRRfan ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Same rationale as 2009. The information is duplicated and redundant between this article and the list article. The list article is not featured, so it should not be a major issue merging that, and I don't think the fact this is featured should preclude the merging. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, it's done. I'll be taking this to GT now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the merge has been done, and that the merged content is adequately referenced. However, one thing was considerably changed from the List of Storms article was Zeta. It originally was in the Storms section, and now it is a passing mention in the season summary. That strikes me as odd, considering that Zeta was not really part of the season per se. Shouldn't it be in the storms section? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fails WP:NWX since there was minimal land impact and no meteorological reasoning for the article. The season article section is quite small and this could be summarized there easily. Noah, AA Talk 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fails WP:NWX since the impact was minimal. The season article, an FA, would improve if this were merged into it since the section there is quite small and lacking. Noah, AA Talk 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Debby only brought minimal impacts to Cape Verde, the only place it affected. Nothing that would establish notability. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Support merge: Not very noteworthy; little coverage or impact, certainly not enough to warrant a standalone article.The season article is the place to tell this storm's story. Drdpw ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
While the storm did have some impact, I feel like much of it falls under WP:ROUTINE since it wasn't severe in nature. The season section (this season article is an FA) is woefully lacking here as well and could use a boost from this article's content. Noah, AA Talk 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)