# Talk:Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology

Hola.  If you all know of heavier amounts for these areas, or for other unlisted countries/islands, be free to include them. User Talk:thegreatdr 6 May 2006 1804 UTC

I just reuploaded the image per the higher amounts found in Storm Data reports from Chris (1982).  This image, and its span of years, is likely to change from time to time as the Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Project pushes farther back into time.  Thegreatdr 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Only 3.47 inches due to Hurricane Nora in California? That's surprising... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The system tracked through Arizona in deep southwest flow, so California didn't receive very much rainfall, according to the daily amounts digitally received from NCDC.  I could always check storm data to see if there were any higher amounts...I'm in the process for doing that for the older storms as it is, and am working forward.  Thegreatdr 08:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think Hurricane Kathleen had more rainfall, but that's probably a storm you haven't gotten to yet. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not yet.  I have Heather and Doreen, but need to fill in the gap before changing the start year of the graphic.  I'm working on Olivia (1982) right now.  Thegreatdr 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work with this. It could be B class, but a little more organization and some more sources are needed. If possible, inline sourcing should be added. All in all, good work on the topic. Hurricanehink 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Converted the sources to inline sources, using Cite.php. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Titoxd.  I've started adding references in this style to some of the other tropical cyclone pages where I have added information. User Talk:thegreatdr 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I initially classified this one as a Mid-importance, though I'm not sure about it. It's either a high-end Mid or a High IMO. My choice on Mid was based on the fact I believe there probably be a Tropical cyclone climatology page which covers all aspects of tropical cyclones (and would be high-importance) and this would be a major sub-article of it. However as this is a significant section it could be justified as High in its own right, what do people think?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That could certainly be a huge/important page, if it covered the world's tropical cyclone climatology, depending how many details one wanted to include.  Thanks for the feedback.  Thegreatdr 20:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, help! The citations on this page are just links. You can use templates such as Template:cite web, Template:cite news, Template:cite journal, Template:cite book, etc. to give full citations. Just do as I did for the first 3 or so. I would really look much better! Thanks. → JARED (t)  13:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression from wikipedia that refs with full links were better to use for citations than the cleaner looking sort.  Am I incorrect in my interpretation?  Thegreatdr 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the full link is still there, just with other seemingly vital information. I think that it definitely looks nicer with full citations instead of links, but it is still always up to the editor to choose the citing style. See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources. → JARED (t)  20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You forget that if a link does not have a title and a retrieval date, then it is hard to access if the link goes dead. This is why I am going to reformat them.--Rmky87 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Luckily I came to the same conclusion a couple months ago...I just haven't gotten to this page yet.  Thegreatdr 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that "going to reformat them" really means, "start to actually do that, get distracted, then remember to get back on it, then get distracted again..."--Rmky87 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The reformatting is done.  There is one dead link which relates to a fact from Guam, for which I'm trying to find a replacement.  Thegreatdr 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that.--Rmky87 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed a possible error. As far as I know Qairoon Hairiti weather station is found in Oman (just north of Salalah, in the mountains. WMO number 41315), NOT Saudi Arabia. You may want to verify this.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.244.65 (talk • contribs) 

Good catch, apparently it is at 17.25N 54.08E, in Oman. I've adjusted the article accordingly.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to increasing demand over the past couple years, and after toying with different color schemes and methods, color-filled versions of the storm total graphics are finally available for the lower 48 from the 2003-2006 seasons, which will expand backward through the climatology over the next month or two and include the Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Island images.  This change also includes a suggestion made to make the images clickable to their full-size representations.  The website now includes both the original version and the color-filled version of the storm total graphics.
Feedback is appreciated and has been an important part of the evolution of this project over the past couple years.  Introduction of the Kocin Northeast Hurricane Rainfall graphics has recently expanded the climatology farther back in time (unconquered cases from 1933 through 1976) than originally anticipated.  All hurricane-related rainfall impacts from 1955 are now included.  
In the second major expansion of the project, expect to see Mexico added into the climatology in coming months, which is anticipated to greatly expand the utility of the project.  We have received rainfall data from their meteorological service due to the initiative one of my co-workers at Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, and plan on "emigrating" the project into our neighbors to the south shortly.
Hawaii has not been forgotten.  Graphics for our island state remain a
possibility at a later time. Thegreatdr 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job with the progress, that's the least that can be said. Just curious. Has any attempt been made to provide similar maps for Cuba, given that you've already found the top 10 totals for the country? Also, how is the progress with Canada's information? I still gotta say how cool it is to have a member of the inside on our side. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The Cuban information is just from their website.  =)  Canada information has been mainly collected in real-time from a contact I have at the Canadian Hurricane Centre.  There may be enough information online from ONAMET for the Dominican Republic to create a top ten list for that country, though the amounts are 24 hour.  Thegreatdr 14:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, very cool. Now, I'm curious, how far back do you think you'll be able to extend the project? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Good question.  For Mexico, it appears the 1950's will be as far back as I will be able to go.  I was originally planning on a similar time frame for the United States as well, but there are older storms (pre-1955) that will be worth investigating.  Thegreatdr 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Very cool, thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Found a website detailing Tropical Cyclone Ami's (2003) passage through the island group, which included rainfall information.  Also better organized the references and increased the page's "wikification".  Thegreatdr 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a great site on Saipan's rainfall information. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get the link to work.  Maybe it's temporarily out.  I'll check again tomorrow.  Thegreatdr 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Weird, it worked for me. Hopefully you'll find it useful, at the very least. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I checked on both IE 7.0 and Firefox.  Is the address typed correctly?  Thegreatdr 12:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There are alot of large gaps between sections as well as many stubby sections. When these problems are addressed feel free to contact me. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to go to WP:GA/R. Tarret 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To help eliminate some of the gaps, I've reduced the size of many of the images from 250px to 200px.  To help with the stubby sections, I'm adding some detail on the country's elevations and a top ten list of tropical cyclone rainfall totals, where enough rainfall information is available to create such a list.  Some of these places have very little known rainfall data sources, so there's not much else I can do. Thegreatdr 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Work has been progressing on the article to "eliminate the large gaps."  Since it has been a week, I've removed the hold per the hold criteria.Thegreatdr 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the article is good, but it feels like it is trying to cover too much at the same time. I think the article could be improved significantly by just splitting it into subarticles, and using this page as a summary/index. The articles can then be linked via a navigational template (such as the one I'm making for tropical cyclone), and the organization of the article would be improved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it all on one page for the time being.  Once information gets more complete, I agree that the article will need to be subdivided.  Perhaps the country sections could be thrown into one or more lists/articles and this article can focus on the basics (the first portion of the current page) and records for various time scales.  I would like some more time to continue going through the JTWC annual articles to see if any more rainfall nuggets lie hidden for international sites before considering the work complete and subdividing the article...similar to what has happenned with the tropical cyclone article.  Thegreatdr 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How's that for a start?  I removed much of the forecasting information and moved it to a new page called tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting.  Also, United States tropical cyclone rainfall climatology has risen like a phoenix from the ashes (it was the original name of this page).  =)  China tropical cyclone rainfall climatology was also split off from this article.  Before we start splitting off more countries from this page, we really need more rainfall information from the various countries.  Thegreatdr 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Or continents. Or basins. No hurries, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
See what you think of how the article has been spliced and diced over the past 4 weeks.  I think we're up to 4 articles and 2 list articles that were originally all part of this page.  Thegreatdr 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have unfortunately had to fail this article for Good Article status.  First of all, the article is VERY well referenced, and I must commend the authors for that.  That being said, the article has several major problems that prevent me from passing or putting a hold on the article.  Per criteria at WP:WIAGA:

Criteria 1 (c): The lead section does not adequately summarize the article.  See WP:LEAD for more details.
Criteria 1 (b) and 3(a): The article does not seem to address what the title would lead one to believe.  Climatology is defined as studying "the frequency and trends of [weather] systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions."  This would seem to me that an article about rainfall climatology of tropical systems would talk about how and why and where tropical systems bring rain to certain areas, and historical trends of such systems.  This article is largely a list of major storms by rainfall, which may well be a valid wikipedia article, but does not address the subject in its title adequately.
Criteria 3 (b): The article is heavy on trivia, such as random lists of tropical storms by rainfall amount.  In fact, with a few interjections here and there, this article seems composed almost exclusively of lists of tropical storms by rainfall amounts.
Also, as the article is mostly composed of lists (and lists-within-lists) and thus, since the GA process expressly is not for reviewing lists, this probably falls outside the scope of a GA review.
Tips for improvement:

Split this article up!.  There are really two articles here:
An article explaining rainfall trends in tropical storms, covering such aspects as historical trends and mechanisms that cause such trends (which is what the article claims to be)
A list of heavy rainfall events by location (which is what this article is)
The section titled United States Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Statistics actually seems to be a good model, as it actually goes into trends and averages over time for tropical storm rainfall.  While it does fail to explain these trends (which seems to be a vital part of a climatology article) it is a good start on how to begin improving the rest of the article.
Consider moving this article to a new article and starting this one over from scratch.  The article is VERY well referenced, and has a wealth of information, but it really is just a "List of major rainfall events by location", which again may be a worthwhile article, but is not this article.  This article should be so different from what it is now, that a clean slate may be in order.  I wouldn't want to lose the information already here, but it should be elsewhere, not here.
I hope that review will help you improve this article.  Good luck, and if you have any questions, please see my talk page.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph was rewritten to be more consistent with the content of the article and the feedback from GA review.  Per GA review and Titoxd's comments, a new page titled List of wettest tropical cyclones by country has been created.  There is significant overlap between tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting and this page, which is to be expected, but there may be a way to pare back information from the forecasting article since the basics should be contained in this article.  Any comments on how to resolve this discrepancy are appreciated.  Thegreatdr 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has improved a LOT since I last laid eyes on.  It definately deserves to be renominated for GA again.  If renominated, and I were the reviewer again, I would promote it as a GA.  I am fairly certain any other reviewer would promote it as well.  This may be one of the best improvements in the shortest time I have seen.  Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've renominated the article.  =)  Thegreatdr 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

Two minor things, I think a definition of the article's topic would be just dandy in the lead;). Second The prose lacks a good flow. ambiguous nouns etc... "While flooding is common to tropical cyclones near a landmass" I didn't know cyclones could be flooded! Just joking but this kind of thing seems to be prevalent in the first three paragraphs. Get an editor to take a look at your English usage and it will be smooth sailing for GA. Let me know how it goes and I will finish my review.Cronholm144 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if the changes made are sufficient to the lead and first few sections.  Thegreatdr 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
yes the edits are sufficient. However I encourage the continual improvement of articles, so I recommend the occasional peer review to keep this article at its best. Congratulations and thanks to all who contributed for their hard work. Cronholm144 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the GA status!  This is quite possibly the most improved article I have ever seen at GA.  This article is so much better than the one I reviewed above.  Again, congrats to everyone that worked on making this a Good Article! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. I tagged a few images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have an account, consider moving them. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into this article and Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting while correcting a typo - the same typo in the same reference in both.  They have several overlapping pictures, they both deal with rainfall, etc.  Maybe two articles are needed, but if so try to cut down on the overlap, make the distinction between climatology and forecasting clearer (as a non-expert, I don't see the difference), and use WP:summary style to redirect readers to the other main article for subsections that just briefly review the content.  You don't want to have this article get into a state where people are adding interesting stuff to two different versions at random and then you have to go through it all and sort it out word by word later. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It was necessary to have moderate overlap between the two articles.  We do have tags which redirect people back and forth between the forecasting and climatology articles.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)