2010 Atlantic hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 28, 2017. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance). 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Klotzbach, Phillip J. and Gray, William M. Summary of 2010 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity and Verification of Author's Seasonal and Two-Week Forecasts. Colorado State University, 2010-11-10.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Intensity changes from operational advisories

Alex

Winds upped to 110mph and pressure lowered to 946mb

Two

No Change

Bonnie

Winds upped to 45mph and pressure lowered to 1005mb.

Colin

No change

Five

Pressure increased to 1008mb

Danielle

No change

Earl

Pressure lowered to 927mb

Fiona

Winds upped to 65mph and pressure increased to 998mb

Gaston

No change

Hermine

Winds upped to 70mph and pressure lowered to 989mb

Igor

Pressure lowered to 924mb

Julia

Winds upped to 140mph and pressure lowered to 948mb

Karl

Winds upped to 125mph

Lisa

Winds upped to 85mph and pressure lowered to 982mb

Matthew

Winds upped to 60mph

Nicole

Winds upped to 45mph and pressure lowered to 995mb

Otto

Pressure increased to 976mb

Paula

Winds upped to 105mph

Richard

Winds upped to 100mph and pressure lowered to 977mb

Shary

No Change

Tomas

Hi I was wondering, is there any reason that the template {{Reflist}} was replaced with {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}}? I am using the Google Chrome browser, and every time that the {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} is used, it ends up splitting the last few references and doubles the length of the page. It especially happens on this article, reference #62, 63, and 64 have been affected by this, and this is a very annoying browser compatibility error, and I think this also occurs on Internet Explorer. I tried reverting this, as I could see it correctly with {{Reflist}}, but Cyclonebiskit reverted it, can every article that was this new extension just go back to the old {{Reflist}}, as I see no reason why this was done. Does anyone have a logical reason why this was done, because all it is doing is causing problems for me.-- 12george1 ( talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I am using Internet explorer 7 and in an edit preview I see no diffrence in removing the 45em so I have no idea why it was placed either. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know what happened, but that new addition to the reflist template is on the Atlantic hurricane seasons from 2005-2010. I am just going to remove all of them since they really aren't having any positive impacts (and even producing errors on my part).-- 12george1 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

IE7 has horrible (well awful) compatibility to web standards so I'm even surprised that it still works. (Upgrade to something newer, IE9 is the best in the IE series for standards) Anyways, a picture of the problem would be nice. I dont think its your browser thats the problem...rather your screen resolution, using the colwidth (which is pretty much what it means, column width) and getting a graphical error usually means that 45em is too wide. I dont know wikipedia code to well, but I am assuming that {{reflist|colwidth=45em}} would translate to <.td style="colwidth: 45em;"> </.td> in HTML (without the periods). Yqt1001 ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I put all the storms in a sandbox. Modify the main article and the sandbox if necessary and try to publish the matter before Dec 31. Thank you. -- Anirudh Emani ( talk) 11:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I uploaded the cumulated TRMM rainfall map under File:2010 Atlantic hurricane season cumulated rainfalls.png but have no clue where to add it in the article. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Already have one in the article File:2010 Atlantic hurricane rainfall.jpg Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 13:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

JR mentioned on my talk page that he found a reference that said the AHS was more active than the PTS. Since January is here, could this be mentioned in the article now? There are also some other records that could be worth mentioning from this reference, too. Rye998 ( talk) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Um, is anyone here? Sorry if i'm being impatient by any means, but can this record be mentioned? No one responded to this for 2 days or so, but is this record worth mentioning in the article now? Rye998 ( talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess you could, but why would you? In the grand scheme of things, how important is northwest Pacific tropical cyclone activity to this article? If we had an overall northern hemisphere tropical cyclone annual summary, I could see its significance. Whether it is the season article, storm article, or any of the meteorological articles, editors in this project need to keep in mind this question: "Is this fact really important to this article?" Today, I had to make significant corrections (in this case, deletions) because the storm surge article had become seriously US-centered, and therefore did not have a neutral point of view. Just keep that question in mind and the correct choices will come to you. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It may, but how often does the most active tropical cyclone basin in the world lose to a basin that typically sees no more than 10 storms per year? Oh, yeah, 2005 is the only other time that happened. I do know that the northwest Pacific and Atlantic are rarely connected by any means, but if this was mentioned in 2005's summary, why not here as well? I mean, it's not like we "don't need" to put the emphasis on Hurricane Celia being only the second June category 5 in the Eastern Pacific, and, if there is emphasis put on this kind of fact, and it "rarely ever happens"(Like Celia), why shouldn't it be put in? I do not think that it "improves and maintains the article" by every means, but if these things are extremly rare, then why shouldn't the emphasis be put on it in articles? I believe it's notable enough to be mentioned in a seperate part of the season, like a seperate summary section of it or so. I agree with you in the fact that there is no need to mention any really specific details in the seasonal summary, like "Earl was the 4th strongest hurricane so far north" or "Karl was the earliest 5th major hurricane since 1961", but with near-unique facts like this one, there is no "nonsense" in putting it in. I agree there is no need for us to mention trivial facts like "Hurricane Rita was the strongest Gulf of Mexico hurricane to be retired", but a fact like "the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season had more named storms than the Western Pacific basin. Aside from 2005, this never happened before", isnt trivial at all. It's like not mentioning that "Allison was the only TS to be retired". Why wouldn't that be notable? I believe this record would definitely bear mentioning in the main article, but we need to make a new section about the seasonal statistics. It isn't very appropriate to mention it in the lead paragraph. Rye998 ( talk) 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I agree with DR. It would be more useful if it was in a broader article (like Tropical cyclones in 2010, which we should get around to making someday), but I honestly think we should avoid intra-basinal records (like the one with Omeka being the first December storm in the western hemisphere since X year being removed). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Ive been thinking about this record over the last couple of days and i dont think it should be mentioned until all the NHC/JMA/JTWCs BT is all done, as it wouldnt surprise me to see a few systems added to the WPAC count. Although that said let me lead you on a merry dance around a few possible issues. 1) Do you keep it to just JMA? - if you did you could face a possible 1 min Vs 10 min issue since the JMA uses 10-min winds to name and the NHC uses 1-min (ie a 30kt JMA TDs would be 35kt NHC TS using a standard 10-1 min conversion). If you used JTWC tropical storms you would avoid that issue, however a fresh issue would crop up over them not being the official naming agency anymore. Also aside from that what about the two misfits of the PTS, Domeng and Omeka, that were considered to be tropical storms whilst in the WPAC by PAGASA and <Sarcasm>one of which quite remarkably transformed into a tropical storm as it crossed the IDL</sarcasm> the NWS. So maybe it would be best just to leave it out and maybe remove the record from 2005 since it doesn't sound that important. Jason Rees ( talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It isn't really a trivial record, but we never put the emphasis on the Atlantic being more active than the EPac since it's happened almost every season since 1995. I agree that it isn't exactly improving or maintaining the article, and it isn't the most notable feature to be mentioned, I just believe that rare events like this do bear mentioning. However, since it isn't exactly improving or maintaining the article, it doesn't exactly have to be mentioned in the article. It is notable, but I guess the question is "is it mentionable?" I am not bad with it not being mentioned in this article; I agree with HurricaneHink; it should probrably be mentioned in a seperate article such as "Worldwide storms in 2010". We don't mention Hurricane Felix as being the second of two category 5's of a season, since it wouldn't be able to do it without Dean; it's a seasonal record. We can't just say the Atlantic was more active than the WPac because the Atlantic couldn't be more active if the WPac was this quiet; it's an inter-tropical cyclone season record, not a record for this season alone. And JR, I never mentioned that we should say something like "Hurricane Igor was stronger than any storm in the WPac this season" just because the JMA uses 10-minute winds, but if no one else believes that this record is "extremly important" to this article, then it doesn't really have to be mentioned. Rye998 ( talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

For the time being, it would be very hard to reference per the reasons Jason has mentioned. This year, it was easier to beat the western Pacific because they had record low activity, per the JTWC. But did they set a record per JMA, the RSMC of the western Pacific? And did the Atlantic numbers beat what JMA recognized, or just what JTWC recognized? Thegreatdr ( talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

And in 2005, it was easy for the Atlantic to beat the Western Pacific because the Atlantic had record high Activity that year. However, the factors for tropical cyclone activity rarely play in favor of the Atlantic over the WPac; this season and 2005 are the only times that has ever happened. And the JMA is the official RSMC for the WPac. We have to follow the official RSMC data no matter what other tropical cyclone warning centers say. The JTWC is an alternative source used for determining the SSHS maximum category of storms in the WPac. The JMA scale is: tropical depression, tropical storm, severe tropical storm, and Typhoon, and that's that. We go by TD, TS, and the 5 categories of hurricanes. The JTWC may have monitored more storms than the JMA, but it doesn't matter which one you want to go by; neither warning center observed more than 14 named storms in this WPac season. And per JMA data, 2010 was the least active season, as well as per the JTWC. This kind of thing rarely happens, and that's the main reason why I believe it's worth mentioning. It's not every day this kind of thing comes across us, but every basin worldwide in 2010 exept for the NIO and Atlantic were record-low active. If you don't believe it's mentionable just because the WPac was record dead in 2010, then 2005 isn't mentionable either because the Atlantic was record active in that year. Rye998 ( talk) 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

If you do decide to mention it, all that would need to be said is "Atlantic tropical cyclone activity was above average, and for the first time since 2005, exceeded activity in the northwest Pacific." And, of course, provide the necessary (non-blogged) reference. There's no serious harm in adding something minor like that...just don't get into a paragraph (or multi-paragraph essay) about it. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe it is fine mentioning. I just put it in the last part of the 2nd paragraph(with the activity). But how can you make that into a short number? I'm not so good at this part. Rye998 ( talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

If you can find a non-dead reference, please try to use some sort of citation format rather than a bare external link. Inserted a fact tag. Thegreatdr ( talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It's the same reference, but I don't know how to put it in the proper format, or put it in the reflist. Rye998 ( talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Check your talk page. It's really easy when you use the buttons provided. Thegreatdr ( talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I checked it, and changed it, is it good now? Thanks for the advice DR, BTW. Rye998 ( talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Where did the seasonal forecasts section go? Rye998 ( talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I was going to ask that yesterday, but got up in something else...That's a very good question. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Did some wacko decide to delete it, or is it being archived into a different article? I hope it's not no. 1... Anyways, it was put back. Rye998 ( talk) 11:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

It was hidden, but Hurricanehink ( talk) uncovered it when I asked everyone about it last night. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 13:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I got an e-mail about this myself. The section is relevant and should remain on this page. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Did anyone update Igor and Tomas yet?-- Darkinferno30 ( talk) 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Define "update". Do you mean the TCR's, or some other thing on them? Their TCR's are yet to be issued, so if that's what you mean, then have patience for them to be issued. Rye998 ( talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Does anybody know when the retired names would be announced? I know it will be a few months away, but I want to know. -- Weatherlover819 ( talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

They will most probably be announced around Easter in the build up to the 2011 AHS. Jason Rees ( talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Jason and Weatherlover, per this newsletter from the WMO from meteoworld, the 33rd session of the RA IV Hurricane Committee is currently being sceduled for March 8-12 in Georgetown in the Cayman Islands, the same time it was last year. It might be postponed if not all of the TCR's are issued by then, however. We will hear status about our retired names by then. I hope that helps clear things up. Also, any speculations should be kept to the Hurricane Wiki mentioned below the orange box at the top of the page. Rye998 ( talk) 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

No Rye we will not hear anything about the retired names until after the WMO meets, since its them who decide the names - hence why i said we will hear the new names around easter. Also the WMO will not postpone their meeting until after all the NHC TCRs are out in fact in previous years weve gone into previous WMO meetings with them not out. Jason Rees ( talk) 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

But that is when the meeting is being sceduled, however, and even though the NHC may not update their website until later, per 2007, that is when the RA IV will happen, and it also doesn't mean we will not have info on our retired names by then, per 2008. And anyhow, any further word of retirement speculations should be kept to the Hurricane Wiki. Sometimes the NHC may update their website on retired names weeks later, but that doesn't mean it's always going to happen that way. And yes, the retired names will be announced by then, but per what you said, you think it will take some weeks for word to get out. Anyways, I hope this discussion has been concluded. Rye998 ( talk) 20:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I think Lisa deserves a article for being unique.

It didn't do anything really, there's no need for one. Its season section is sufficient. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Sign your post with 4 tildes(~). IMO, Lisa doesn't really need an article. An article only needs to be made if there is enough information on the storm to warrant it. There isn't really much that can be said with Lisa, so it's just fine being in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season without an article of it's own. Rye998 ( talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm just wondering, Gaston might warrant a article. Gaston did cause some rain in the Leeward Islands.

Nope. "Some rain" does not mean it should have an article. A storm has to actually do something to get an article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please sign your post with 4 tildes(~). Gaston does not need to have an article. There is not enough information on that storm. Rosalina2427 ( talk) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If we were to make article about Lisa and Gaston, which would be more notable? 39.tg ( talk)

Neither are notable enough for an article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, sign your post with four tildes(~). There is no need for every storm in the season to have an article. See WP:Notability. Only storms that had any effects on land should be mentioned, or that meet the notability criteria. Rye998 ( talk) 15:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

t

I moved them all back to (2010) since that goes against precedence of hundreds of other articles and creates confusion between storms. Of those names, Igor and Tomas have reasonable retirement cases (but WP:CRYSTALBALL and we should be looking for written proof that a case is being made), while Richard and Shary are almost certainly not going to be retired. It had long been clear that in basins with repeating name lists, no number at the end = retired name. Colin, Fiona, Julia and Paula (the other new names) were never moved and shouldn't be. CrazyC83 ( talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It's based on article standards in Wikipedia ( WP:COMMONNAME). There is no need to have a year identifier if there is only one storm of a particular name. The WPTC should really be following overall WP standards better, and not making up its own rules. Even whether something is retired or not doesn't mean it should automatically have the main article title. If there happens to be some scenario where a name is retired but isn't overwhelmingly the most common title, then it needn't be at the main article. For example, if there happens to be a particularly severe Hurricane Celia in the EPAC and is better known than the Atlantic one. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I thought the rule was retired or otherwise unused gets the main article? Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yea, see Hurricane King, Hurricane Beta, Hurricane Irene–Olivia, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I found the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 23#Retired storm article nomenclature. I moved them back. If we ever do get another Richard, we can move the pages back. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I personally disagree with that. Although Hurricane Richard is the only storm named Richard, it most likely isn't gonna be retired, and it probrably will be in use again in 2016. I agree with storms like Hurricane Francelia and Hurricane King however, because they are the only storms of their names and currently aren't on any other naming lists, wheras Richard, Shary, Colin, and Julia are and probrably will be again in 2016. In cases like Celia, I'm not so sure as to what we should do if there is a retired Pacific storm of the same name, but because that probrably won't happen with the one we have now, there isn't any need to discuss about that. Rye998 ( talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

But we wouldn't even have to worry about that until 2016. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't see much of a difference between Francelia and Richard. There is no guarantee Richard will be used again (the naming lists might change, terrorists could drain the Atlantic Ocean and stop storms from forming, we might enter an ice age, etc.) If it comes to us moving it, we can, but there is no need to have a (2010) hash on the end of them. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess there is no need to worry about it for now. I mean, this is several years down the road, and it isn't worth debating for something that probrably won't be worried about for several years. Rye998 ( talk) 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

In the case of Celia, if that happened that an EPAC Celia was retired, then Hurricane Celia would move to Hurricane Celia (1970) and the EPAC one would be Hurricane Celia (2016) or whatever, since neither could take real precedence. CrazyC83 ( talk) 17:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that we should now move the names that were the only one of its name. 39.tg ( talk) February 23 2011

Move to what? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The main article, I think he meant. If, by chance, an Atlantic and Pacific Celia/Hilda/Dora become retired, I would prefer the articles to be named Hurricane Celia (Atlantic) and Hurricane Celia (Pacific), or something like that. A different way to determine consensus on that issue is to determine which of the two retired names sticks out more than the other one. However, because that will not be an issue for possibly several years down the road, there is no need to continue it here any longer. Rye998 ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

A (basin) suffix would be rather counterintuitive. We use the year identifiers to differentiate between storms of the same general level of notoriety. If two Celias are retired, then we go back to using the years... Juliancolton ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have updated Igor's ACE in the ACE calculations subpage. Would someone check my calculations and edit it on the main page? -- Weatherlover819 ( talk) 00:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

When are the WMO conferences? -- Highspeedrailguy ( talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Did you see the "When?" section above? I said it would take place from March 8-12 in Georgetown in the Cayman Islands, per the WMO newsletter I found... -- Rye998 ( talk) 14:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

No need to be impatient. The conferance is in 1 week from now. 67.9.35.6 ( talk)

Yes the WMO meetings will commence next Tuesday but, as I said earlier, if you have any speculations on retired names of 2010, put them Here, not here, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Cheers, Rye998 ( talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Looks like the NHC recently added the 2016 list with no changes from the 2010 list, however, I assume this is only preliminary, since the same thing happened in 2008 just before the 2007 retired names were announced. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 21:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It's gonna be be interesting if they didn't retire any names. 65.32.55.162 ( talk) 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Um, let's not get too off topic everyone. If you have any comments, put them on Hurricane Wiki. And yes the NHC list is only preliminary, Andros. Although I don't have any official word yet, it's just not possible for no names to be retired from this season. At least Karl should be going, and several other names could be retired as well. If there are any other retirement predictions you have, put them on Hurricane Wiki. I will be searching for a reference today and tomorrow if there is any info on our retirees. Be patient just a bit longer... Rye998 ( talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm...The WMO confrences end today. I still can't find a reference about any possible retired names we had in 2010, but I expect one will come out very soon. Rye998 ( talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The WMO are commonly slowpokes as posting the press release. My thought is they will be up by the 18th, but we'll see.Mitch32^{( Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It's just breaking that Igor and Tomas are gone, with everything else set to be reused. See this. Juliancolton ( talk) 17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I have moved Karl back. Before everyone goes ape, let's have a new discussion on this, since Karl wasn't retired, its (2010) should return.Mitch32^{( Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Why? 2010's Karl was still the most notable Karl, as all of the others were fish storms. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

BUT, there have been other Hurricane Karls, and notability is equal when names are not retired. Karl definitely should be moved back if it hasn't already been. We had this debate in 2005 with Emily. CrazyC83 ( talk) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I completely disagree with that. Naming is certainly not equal. What does it matter if it was retired? Wikipedia rules dictate that if one topic is more well-known than others, that should have the main article. I personally think Emily should've remained at the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm on the side of having a storm be at a main article based on the scale of damage as well as if it was retied. Though many storms have been kept despite the scale of damage left by them, they are well-known in that particular year. Karl is probably the most recent case of a storm that truly should have a main article despite not being retired. Also, what's the harm in not having the year there...We'll just move it in six years. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe it should keep the (2010). It probrably won't be viewed any more often than any other Karl now, and at the very least we could make a "lack of retirement" section on Karl's article, but not being retired, I don't see why it should have the year anymore. Also, the 5.6 billion could be downed to ~3 or less billion soon, and that may discourage people from paying attention to Karl's article in the future, especially if the 2016 Karl challenges the 2010 Karl's notability. Emily will be reused this year anyway, and for that reason moving her to the main article would be a waste of time if the Emily this year challenges it's notablility. If anyone wants to go nuts over anything in 2010 not being retired, do it on the Hurricane Wiki, please. Rye998 ( talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please direct further discussion about Karl being at (2010) or not at Talk:Hurricane Karl#And.... --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Each Tropical Cyclone Report issued gave an updated estimate to the damages in USD, but the Damages chart was never updated with this information. For example: The Report on Karl clearly states that damage was limited to 206 Million, and not 5.6 Billion. Alex was 1,510 Billion and not the current figure we have listed. And the Report for Depression Two isn't "unknown" .... they state that the damages were "None".

The damages can and should be updated with the information provided by the National Hurricane Center, shouldn't they? SargeAbernathy ( talk) 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The National Hurricane Center doesn't focus much on the actual impact of storms, most of that is left to the media and agencies that are in that field. The damage totals listed for storms in the Wikipedia articles generally follow what is stated by a country's government, especially for Mexico. The damage from storms is often substantially underrepresented in the TCR (as is the case for Alex and Karl) and sometimes storms that cause some damage are reported as having none, like Tropical Depression Two. Hopefully that clears things up. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

That would make sense. I can't imagine an organization dedicated to learning about the science of Hurricanes to be also employing actuaries and calculating the total cost of the damage. That being said, are the only sources for damages from the individual media reports made slightly after the event? I would trust figures given by the government several months after the storm, not a couple of days. I suppose what really annoys me now are the Tropical Cyclone Reports. Looking at, say Alex, I see several "rough estimate based on media reports" but they don't cite which reports and when. I'm glad I didn't go ahead and change the damage statistics for each hurricane, I had a feeling that there was something I was missing. SargeAbernathy ( talk) 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, Initial estimates published by the media tend to be too high. We might see wether one or more of the reissurers will report damages, f.ex. Swiss Re claims that Alex caused an economical damage of 3,45 billion USD total damage (with 209 million USD insured damage) and according to them Karl caused total damage of 4,13 billion US (203 million USD insured damage), see their PDF "sigma 1/2011", page 24 and 25 (page numbers refer to the German language version, I didn't look up if the English language version page numbers differ). -- Matthiasb ( talk) 10:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Where dd the season summary map go to? 71.99.32.171 ( talk) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? It's sitting right there in the infobox. Rye998 ( talk) 02:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/07/23/1600905/storm-could-take-away-sights-and.html
  • In Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 2011-03-18 00:46:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-18 11:57:59, 404 Not Found

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane2008/May/background_information.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100814/ARTICLE/8141036/2055/NEWS
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Maryland-man-drowns-in-North-Carolina--100261959.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1655955/hurricane-earl-swells-to-category.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129161149/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Comparison_of_Original_and_Revised_HURDAT_mar11.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Comparison_of_Original_and_Revised_HURDAT_mar11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100902_Hurricane_Earl_likely_to_spare_Jersey_Shore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722165422/http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2010/09/13/page/10/ to http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2010/09/13/page/10/
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.yucatan.com.mx/20100915/nota-13/3494-karl-solo-causa-inundaciones-en-quintana-roo-y-alerta-en-campeche-.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton ( talk · contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article against the GA criteria. My assessment may take a couple days. Some initial comments:

• It's usually recommended to describe the subject matter in the opening lines before introducing superlatives. In this case, "five-way tie for the third-most active" seems way overstated when shoe-horned into the first sentence. Compare the intro of 2012 AHS, which I find preferable.
  • Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Activity in the Atlantic exceeded activity in the West Pacific for only the second time on record. - pipe in a link to Tropical cyclone basins#Northwestern Pacific Ocean, and maybe reword the sentence to avoid using "activity" twice and make it more clear how activity is defined.
  • Okay. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Activity was represented with an Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) - either capitalize the whole term or decap "accumulated".
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Impact in 2010 stretched across numerous countries and numerous tropical cyclones. - "impact in 2010" is clumsy, and suggest avoiding "numerous" twice in so short a stretch.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• whereas rip currents produced by Tropical Depression Five killed two people. - whereas suggests contrast; not sure how TD 5 deaths contradict Colin's.
  • Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• It's misleading to say Danielle Major hurricanes Danielle "moved parallel to the East Coast", seeing as it was hundreds of miles east of Bermuda!
  • !!! TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• You can probably shorten "East Coast of the United States" to "U.S. East Coast" after the first usage.
  • Probably. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Hurricane Paula caused a tourist to drown, while Hurricane Richard left two dead. - where and where?
  • Added and added. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Specifically mentioning Bonnie's US impact in the lead but ignoring Earl and Igor in Canada is the ultimate exercise in 'merica.
  • Un-ignored. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• In advance of, and during, each hurricane season, → "Before and during..."?
  • K den. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• considered occasionally - switch the word order.
  • Yessir. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• TSR needs a link/claim to credibility/some sort of explanation of why we should listen to their forecast.
• "featuring" odd word choice.
  • Oh yeah?! TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• "Meanwhile" suggests something happening at the same time, not five weeks later.
  • True. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Not sure I see the point in having a table of prediction updates as well as a prosified, comprehensive list of the same. Since the information is much more conveniently found in the table, I would recommend summarizing the text to include initial forecasts and rationales, but not every subsequent tweak.
• Contrary to the 2010 Pacific hurricane season - conventional wisdom says Atlantic and EPac activity have an inverse relationship, so not sure how this is "contrary".
  • Nuttin' wrong with highlighting the dichotomy. Changed the word. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• documented across the basin, of which 19 - dangling modifier.
  • O noes. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 12 further intensified, [...] and 5 further intensified..." - do we need "further" twice?
  • Doubt it. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• only the record-breaking 2005 season and 1933 featured more activity - err... wouldn't 1933 have also been record-breaking? I know what you're trying to convey here, but pretty much every season has broken some sort of record.
  • Very true. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• the second such occurrence on record alongside 2005. - "alongside" → "after"
  • Okay. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Throughout the entire Atlantic database - which database?
  • The pizza one. #pizzagate TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• allowing anomalously low vertical wind shear to overspread the Atlantic Ocean - it seems odd to say a lack of something can "overspread".
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Who's to say ENSO is "first" and SSTs are "second"?
  • Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Lower sea level pressures—implying increased instability and low-level moisture - several links needed here, or at least reduce some of the jargon.
  • Did both. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• An area of low pressure [...] in conjunction with data from a reconnaissance aircraft [...] further organized" - you see the problem.
  • Er, I think. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Steered west and eventually west-northwest - by what?
  • A big ole ridge. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• attained peak winds of 65 mph - I'd specify "initial peak" or something.
  • Right. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Alex dove west-southwest - looks more like a gradual departure than a dive, but there we are...
  • Ok. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The precursor disturbance to Alex inundated hundreds of homes - I know "inundated" usually implies flooding in the context of storms, but this should be made more explicit.
  • Explicated. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• swollen rivers flooded countless homes - "countless" a bit hyperbolic for an encyclopedia.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 35.04 in (890.02 mm) - false precision on the conversion.
  • RIP. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 13 ft (4 m) waves - adj=on needed
  • Wasn't a template originally, but I changed it. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Seems a bit disproportionate for the US to receive the same number of sentences as Mexico for Alex impact.
• Link tropical wave on the first usage (in TD 2, I believe), as well as other technical terms like wind shear.
  • Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Steered west-northwest and then west - I think that "steered in a direction" should specify what did the steering; if you want to avoid describing the steering currents for brevity, just say the storm moved in that direction.
  • Okay. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• the depression failed to organize appreciably, instead moving ashore South Padre Island, Texas, - instead? Is becoming a strong TC mutually exclusive with making landfall?
  • Probably not. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• For TD 2, if you remove the line about predicted conditions, that would free up space for a little more info on what actually happened.
• A tropical wave first emerged - remove "first"
  • Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• isolated towns [...] and prompting - parallelism needed.
  • Good game. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• It seems unconventional to describe PR as a "neighbor" of DR, but your call.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Upon designation, tropical storm watches and warnings were issued - dangling modifier.
• Approximately 14,000 Florida residents - the source says 14,000 customers, not residents.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• storm surge of 0.94 ft (0.29 m) - source says 0.92 ft.
  • Wow RIP. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 3.25 in (82.55 mm) - false precision.
  • RIP. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 5.75 in (146.05 mm) - again.
  • RIP. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• 8–9 in (203–229 mm) - again... I won't keep pointing these out, but make sure to get your rounding right throughout the article.
  • RIP. Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• upper-level trough needs a link in Colin's section, as does "ridge".
  • Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The Carolinas, swells from the storm caused at least 205 water rescues - decap "the" and "caused" → "prompted" or something.
  • Decapped. Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• ITCZ - you never recorded this acronym.
  • Recorded! TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Link eyewall replacement cycle
  • Linked.
• leading to the rescue of 250 people - unless they were all rescued at the same time, it should be plural "rescues".
  • Pluralized. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• RMS Titanic - italicize.
  • Italicized. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Steered by strong ridge - caveman.wikipedia.org?
  • Wat.jpg TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Severe impacts from Earl in Antigua and Barbuda amounted to EC $34 million ($12.6 million USD),[79] where one person was electrocuted trying to restore power. - dangling modifier, and link the currencies.
  • Undangled and linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Wind gusts neared or surpassed hurricane threshold - "threshold" → "intensity"/"force"/"strength" or something since the actual hurricane 'threshold' isn't determined by gusts.
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• leaving streets flooded and many without power. - it left streets without power?
  • Nope. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• left 187,000 residents in the dark - avoid colloquial phrasing like "in the dark".
  • Okay. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• $3.5 million in economic losses. - "economic losses" means something specific; are you sure it wasn't just $3.5mm in damage?
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Three people were killed in rough seas off Florida,[78][88][89] one person was killed by rough seas off Maine,[78] and two people were killed by rip currents off New Jersey.[78] - surely there's a way to simplify this.
  • Why? TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Dictated by an expansive mid-level ridge - dictated?
  • Directed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Fiona's juxtaposition between the mid-level ridge and the large circulation of Hurricane Earl - that isn't a juxtaposition.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Seven people were killed in Texas and one person was killed in Oklahoma, - you can remove the second "person was killed".
  • Axed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• economic losses reached $240 million - same question as before.
  • Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The most intense hurricane of the season began as a tropical wave that organized into a tropical depression about 90 mi (150 km) southeast of Cabo Verde by 06:00 UTC on September 8. - a bit longwinded.
  • Shortened. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• fast paced - hyphenate.
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• inner core realignment vague/jargony.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• enabled a consistent weakening trend - if the storm was being weakened, that hardly seems like enabling.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• while passing very close to Bermuda as a minimal hurricane. - you can afford to provide a specific distance.
  • Provided. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• You have a couple "residents" that should be "households" or "customers" in Igor's section.
  • Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong winds, with sustained winds of 80 mph (130 km/h) gusts to 107 mph (172 km/h) in Cape Pine, downed trees, downed power lines - this is all kinds of jumbled.
  • Unjumbled. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Unclear why Igor was the costliest on record in NL but only the "worst" since 1935.
• Steered in traditional west-northwest fashion - needs "a".
  • A is for added. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• As a reminder of limited hurricane intensity forecasting skill - how so? You don't contrast the RI with actual forecasts.
  • I mean, the NHC did. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Gusts on the magnitude of 24–30 mph (38–48 km/h) - remove "on the magnitude".
  • Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• How do you manage to get a landslide out of 0.4" of rain? Was the ground already wet?
  • Listen man, I'm just the messenger. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The interaction of a tropical wave and elongated trough - strictly speaking, a tropical wave is an elongated trough.
  • Added another. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Some place names have links and other comparable ones don't... consistency needed.
• to weaken shortly - missing word?
  • Nope, just the wrong one.
• uprooted hundreds of thousands and trees
  • Lol. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• The Karl subarticle pegs the damage total at $5.6 billion, in contrast to $3.9b here. Which is the more reliable total?
  • Good question. To through a bigger wrench, NHC lists $200 million USD. AON Benefield, which i think we all agree is reliable, has 3.9 billion. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm getting a little bored, so I'll stop reading here and finish the other eight sections later. On-hold for now. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

More:

• Cape Verde hurricane needs a link
  • Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• You seem to use Cabo Verde and Cape Verde interchangeably throughout the article. Consistency needed.
  • Consistency met. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• A tropical wave that moved off the western coast of Africa on September 11, the same that led to the formation of Julia, was responsible for the development of a tropical depression by - could be tightened: The same tropical wave that led to the formation of Julia..."
  • Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• over 40 percent of the island's water supply was restricted at one point - restricted by what?
  • Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• and quickly strengthening into Subtropical Storm Otto six hours after formation - "strengthening" → "strengthened".
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• the worst flooding in the nation's history—with accumulations up to 24.98 in (634.49 mm) - could be interpreted to mean floodwaters were only that deep.
  • Fixed? TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• countless people - again, not really countless.
  • Okay. :( TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• attained peak winds of 105 mph (165 km/h) at 18:00 UTC despite its unusually small size - compact storms can be as strong as any others; not sure this is a contradiction.
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• beneficial to crops and otherwise low reservoirs. - remove "otherwise".
  • Erased. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Banana crops sustained minimal loss. - maybe not so important to mention?
  • If you say so. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Richard maintained its intensity - seeing as landfall and peak intensity occurred pretty much at the same instant, you probably don't need to say it "maintained" strength during that brief interval.
  • Alright. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• regarded as popular attractions for tourists - this is something that either is or isn't; remove "regarded as" if possible.
  • Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• a jaguar that escaped after a tree opened its cage. - smart tree!
  • They're evolving. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• stationary front needs a link.
  • Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• moving into Barbados "into" → "over"
  • K. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions)
• on a calendar year "on" → "in"
  • K. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• though it was feared many more could die as Tomas exacerbated an already-deadly cholera outbreak. - any update on this?
• The core of the hurricane remaining offshore likely prevented an even larger humanitarian disaster in Haiti.' - seeing as this is pretty much intrinsically true of any storm, and we're looking for concise summaries, I'd remove this line.
  • Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• What makes [64] reliable?
  • What makes it unreliable? Plenty of links to NOAA, information matches as far as I can tell... TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Ref 102 needs publisher info.
  • Added. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• This site appears to be a news aggregator. Try to find the original source if possible.
  • Can't find one, but I am pretty bad at researching. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Questionable reliability: [65]
  • Looks okay to me. St. Kitts news organization. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Sify News isn't an RS, so specify AP as the author for ref 156.
  • Okie. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Ref 166 is a bare url.
  • Filled out. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I think that's about it. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the thorough review. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

K, I'm satisfied with your changes. Thanks for taking action so quickly! Passing GA. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 23:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/7c954b2a681dd8c89db2c26caf6152ee
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230144844/http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=12943857 to http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=12943857
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925070735/http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf/2010/08/remnants_of_tropical_depressio.html to http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf/2010/08/remnants_of_tropical_depressio.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.bviplatinum.com/news.php?module=news&page=Article&articleID=1286500126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216052441/http://www.weather.bm/climate.asp to http://www.weather.bm/climate.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708003828/http://emdat.be/disaster_list/index.html to http://www.emdat.be/disaster_list/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The "Main Article" under Julia's section should be changed to from "Hurricane Julia" to "Hurricane Julia (2010)". Glaceonstan ( talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done Mikelr ( talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Hurricane Julia link in summary timetable to Hurricane Julia (2010) AnDeargMor ( talk) 16:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done: Special:Diff/1116662012. I also changed a few other instances. Skynxnex ( talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Storm Names" section, in the opening paragraph, can you please italic "Charley", "Colin", "Frances", "Fiona", "Ivan", "Igor", "Jeanne", "Julia", "Paula", "Richard", "Sharry", and "Tomas". I have been italicizing the names in opening paragraphs of the "Storm Names" section. Can you please do what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:74EF:5FFC:C6C1:905A ( talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: no valid reason given to support the change.. M.Bitton ( talk) 21:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I just want the names italicized in the "Storm Names" section in the first paragraph. Can someone do it? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:74EF:5FFC:C6C1:905A ( talk) 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

There's no reason to italicise the names. — 😈 🥟 🦆, 23 August 2023, 11:33 (UTC)

Why did they retire Igor and Tomas, but not Alex, Hermine and Karl too?

I'd argue that like others have in the past that this storm does not pass the notability requirements for an article. This storm had a minimal impact to land and only lasted for four days and thus does not meet WP:NWX. While the storm's article is indeed well-developed in the met history section, much of this can and should be summarized to improve Shary's season section which is lacking in details. An article's status does not and should not be a factor in considering whether or not it is merged. The standards for quality have risen considerably over time and merging this would definitely benefit the season article. Noah, AA ^Talk 20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support merge – This storm does not pass the notability threshold for a standalone storm article. It has an unremarkable history and had minimal impact to land. Its story can be well told in the season article. Drdpw ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support article consists largely of a met history that is for the most part a regurgitation of what the NHC has to say. Impacts being minimal, Shary had little independent notability; and most of the article can be more neatly summarised in the main season article. Java Hurricane 07:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please add "(and only, in the cases of Igor and Tomas)" into the storm names section of this page, because if a new name is used for the first time but is retired the following spring, it was used only once. Can someone please do what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:2250:34C6:599F:DDBC:9036 ( talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It is because Igor replaced Ivan after 2004 and Tomas was never used until 2010. Can someone please add "(and only, in the cases of Igor and Tomas)" into the storm names section? Please. 2601:40A:8400:2250:E4AD:EAD2:C75D:60A7 ( talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done – It adds only clutter given that retirements are noted later in the section. Drdpw ( talk) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply