# Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2016)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2016)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

was the earliest third named storm in the Atlantic basin on record. The third named storm of the 2016 season - remove second usage of "third named storm". Perhaps "The first storm after the official start of the 2016 season, Colin developed..." That makes it slightly more interesting, and puts the first two storms more into context.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Initially a tropical depression, the system strengthened while moving northward and was tropical storm about eight hours later." - bit wordy, when you could say "Moving northward, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm about eight hours after formation."
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Strong wind shear would prevent further strengthening, and result in the system maintaining a disheveled appearance on satellite imagery." - why the shift in tense? Previous sentences were regular past tense.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
" at the same intensity." - does this refer to the peak intensity? Because the last time you mentioned wind speeds was three sentences prior. You could say "still at peak intensity."
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
" Governor of Florida " --> "Florida governor"
Can I say "My future office" instead? or "(an office later held by George Cooper)"? :P --12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Being named on June 5" - you said that in the previous sentence
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Around 12:00 UTC on June 7, Colin attained its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 50 mph (85 km/h)" - at the beginning of the paragraph, you said the storm made landfall with winds of 50 mph, so it reached peak intensity at that point. Otherwise, it's just maintaining its intensity
Want me to separate the maximum sustained wind speed and minimum pressure? I could mention the maximum sustained winds with the landfall?--12george1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You should include a bit more of the extratropical history
Can you trim down the watches/warnings? We do this a lot as a project, but I don't think the watches/warnings are as important until we get the last change in warnings before landfall. Otherwise, it's minor tweaking (usually), and it's not as interesting saying when they were canceled.
Anything from the Yucatan?
Florida's many paragraphs are a bit disorganized. I'd love to see a meteorological paragraph (mention the peak rainfall!), as articles usually have. Also, there are some trivial impacts in Florida that could be more gleaned over:
In Hardee County, a tree knocked over power lines, which subsequently struck a house and started a fire.
Done--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The storm also downed electrical lines, causing about 9,500 power outages between Tampa and Temple Terrace. - you already mentioned the power outages in the first sentence. Merge this there
Done--12george1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
A mobile home parked in Clearwater was flooded - we rarely give details on individual houses
It was actually a mobile home park, not a mobile home parked--12george1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Merge the sentences on road closures
Better?--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Combine the Tampa/Orlando airport information
Done--12george1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you combine the sentences on tree impacts, and just include what you think is the most important information? It gets a little trivial
Done--12george1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Any nationwide damage total?
I spent some time looking through Google and NewsBank. I didn't see a national total--12george1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
All in all a decent article, but the impacts need some work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tropical Storm Colin (2016). 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/20160607232834/https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/tropical-storm-colin-impacts-news to https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/tropical-storm-colin-impacts-news
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ac/acus72.ktbw.psh.tbw.txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jax/text.php?sid=JAX&pil=PSH
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A few reverted edits on this article from the past month came from people who believe Colin did not attain tropical storm status. An edit summary by Cyclonebiskit suggests that there may be some validity to this claim even if the system has not been officially downgraded. What is the basis for these claims, and is it something that should be mentioned in the article? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, there's no grounds for that being mentioned in the article. I was just complaining since I disagree with the assessment, but I don't count as a reliable source :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)