Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

message: I was wondering if someone could give an accurate number for the $ amount of damage for this season and put it in the infobox and incorporate it into the article somehow.  Thanks. --tomf688(talk) 04:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I gave as close to an accurate figure as I could come up with. $3,900,000,000 is the number I calculated from the NHC reports. However the the damage figures for Hurricanes Erika an Juan were not listed. Erika's was likely low (<$100 million). Juan's could be anywhere from $200 million to a billion. Also the number of deaths is 92...
Ana-2
Bill-4
Claudette-3
Erika-2
Fabian-8
Isabel-50
Juan-8
Larry-5
Odette-10
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
:The best estimate for the damage of Juan I can find is around $300 million (I've seen between 100-500M) - where did that $1 billion come from? It would take a Category 4 hurricane to strike Halifax (almost impossible) to do that much damage... CrazyC83 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage estimates

message: A season synopsis is needed.  Right now the article is just a list of storms, and the only synopsis is the intro.  Also, the intro needs to be rethought a bit.  Hurricane Isabel was more notable than Tropical Storm Ana, and the introduction should give the storms that caused damage more weight. Jdorje 05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with adding a season summery section and with the statement that only the most notable of season's notables should be mentioned in the intro. Only extremely notable storms should be mentioned there, unless the season had none, then you'd mention the most notable storm of the season. The storms section should remain the main focus of the article however. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: ::Kind of strange how on the track map, they have T.S. Ana on the inset, almost as if they are treating it as not part of the season. Weatherman90 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. If they were treating it as not part of the season, then why include Odette and Peter? Hurricanehink 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only other example I can think of when they used a small map was for Beryl in the 1982 season. Hurricanehink 21:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you haven't seen the Vince/2005 map yet. — jdorje (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, UNISYS uses the inset in a few different seasons.  Not sure if the NHC will do it for 2005; Vince would surely justify it except that Delta is over there too. — jdorje (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ana

message: The infoboxes should not have the year in the date; it causes it to wrap.  Except for year-crossing storms the year is obvious and isn't needed. — jdorje (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2004 season page has the same format, but I'm not really having display problems with either. Where do you get the dates for when the storms are active? I looked at the dates at the tops of the charts in the TCRs which seems to correspond to when the systems were at tropical depression strength or greater. I noticed some storms (Claudette and Fabian were a bit different. Not that any of this is really important, but I like to be accurate.) Good kitty 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only two sources for this information are the TCR or the best-track data (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html).  For 2003 it is pretty much certain the two are the same.  There is some possibility for debate, however, about what constitutes "formation" and "dissipation".  Is formation the date that it achieves depression strength or that it achieves TS strength - I'd say the latter.  And if a storm turns extratropical, does that count as dissipation? — jdorje (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: What about TDs? There was 2, 7, and 14. They deserve a mention. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not. Hurricanehink 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TDs

message: The intro is now 3 full paragraphs long (which is longer than needed, but not too long) and includes a picture.  The picture is a bit of a problem.  Hurricanhink told me it needed to be moved because it caused whitespace, but it looks to me like the whitespace is caused by the really-long ToC and the picture just helps to fill it.  However, when you collapse (hide) the ToC, the picture really clashes with the start of the storms section.  Unfortunately I don't know where else this picture could be moved. If we had a separate "statistics" section it could fit in there. — jdorje (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it was before, with the summary section, allowed for no white space at all. I suppose you could get rid of the picture, but having an article summary section that's below the lead couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, although it still has the same problem if you hide the ToC.  The article has to have an informative lead section, however, and given the current amount of content this would already cover 60% or more of what would go into the summary section.  So what we have now is fine, except for what happens to the picture when the ToC is collapsed.  However if more can be written about the season as a whole, this could go into a new section (or an intro to the storms section) and that could provide room for the picture. — jdorje (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be removed until later? Hurricanehink 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I don't think it's that big of a problem.  Just a fairly minor formatting issue. — jdorje (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I removed it to get rid of the white space. Hurricanehink 23:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro pic 

message: I see that this article has been nominated for good article status. On first look there are no major problems I can see, although some units have not yet been metrified... Hurricane Fabian's section also says "300 million (2003 USD)", and I had to fix a section that said "lowest pressure of 1007." - please make sure such silly and small mistakes are avoided...
The real problem is the lack of sources in the storm section. You'll notice that 27 of your 32 citations come in the impact section. Most of the storm sections have only technical details about the storm's life, and I think, where possible and is needed, you should merge these two sections.
I personally wouldn't pass this as a GA, but maybe someone else will. Given the long list at GA, this may take a while to be reviewed - please use this time to improve the article. Chacor 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: I have just reviewed this article and failed for a number of reasons. 
*it needs a copy edit, examples;
:* in lead although the season really lasted from April 20 to December 11  - really? why is it there, try this although the season lasted from April 20 to December 11 , or  although the 2003 season lasted from April 20 to December 11 .
:* in tropical storm ana was the first ever recorded tropical or subtropical cyclone in April, though there have likely been others that were undetected. redunant information from comma by saying first ever recorded means that unrecorded events could also have occured.
:* in Tropical depression two east of the Lesser antilles and developed capitalise Lesser Antilles also link there is an article on the place.
there are more these were the first few I recorded,
*a reference would be nice for each named storm even though they have a main article (alone not enough to fail) but for the tropical depressions where there is no main article they must have a reference.
*in the Storm Name section the unused names have the tag (unused) after them, why not a tag (retired) after the three names that where retired.
::I've solved three of them-i cant find a reference for the depressions, if someone can that would rock.Mitchazenia 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update-i ref'd the tcr's to the depressions.Mitchazenia 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Help-these references are against me!! They wont work right for me.Mitchazenia 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok its ready for re-nom. I have finished everything mentioned.Mitchazenia 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, a lot of the links aren't working. All of the ones you called "XX Damage report" don't work. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I know. Unfortunately- every time i find a maestro link-it is busted already like Erika '97.Mitchazenia 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, here you go. I forgot the maestro links were just copies of the NCDC storm events. In that link, it has storm event reports for every storm from 1993 to May of 2006. You'll have to manually go through the database, but all of the info that you need is in there. Just click on date, specify the time period, and find the event report that gives the info. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: :'1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
Additional comments :
* Bill is blamed for four deaths, can a storm be actually blamed? Altough I doubt it should be changed ;)
* In Hurricane Erika formed out of a non-tropical low first spotted 1000 nm east... does nm mean nautical miles or nanometers? ;) Please fix this as it is confusing.
* The choice of "mbar" or "mb" should be decided throughout the article ... I mean the first one should say "mbar" and the other pressures should be "mb".
* The money figures should be like $ N,NNNN (2003 USD) for it is not consistent throughout the text.
* In Tropical Storm Henri, the speed figure is not consistent for it changes from "mph" to "kt". See Hurricane Isabel, it now is mi/h, please use only one figure.
* In heavy flooding across the Mid-Atlantic of up to 10 inches., the heavy should be dropped for it gives a subjective idea and because there is a more accurate figure 8 words later (up to 10 inches).
* No forecast section, could there be one.
Good work on the collecting of information. Nice work in trying to prose the article and remove redundant information. Best, Lincher 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Well now as we look at it, every storm but Peter has an article, wanna finish the season and make one for him, or bother leaving it alone?HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Peter could get an article, but I think it should be left to an experienced author. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't expecting to write it.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter and an article

message: Substituted at 04:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment