Talk:Tropical Storm Otto (2004)

message: It's pretty quiet around here - is this article gonna be assessed soon? RaNdOm26 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it as start for now, pending further review by other editors. If any more sources can be found, they'd definitely help. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. RaNdOm26 15:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ummmmmmmm

message: It's close to B class, but there are a few things that should be mentioned. First, you should mention that operationally it was called Tropical Storm Otto on November 30, not a subtropical storm a day earlier. A few places jump around a bit. The storm history should be Otto does A, B, C, D, and dissipates. It's a little confusing at the end of the 2nd paragraph and beginning of the third paragraph if the storm gets it peak intensity over the cooler waters. The first paragraph is a bit too long describing the storm genesis... you might want to end the first paragraph with "The (frontal) low lost its frontal character and developed into a subtropical storm on November 29" or something like that. It just seems a bit jumpy to go from describing the low to saying Subtropical Storm Otto formed 1150 miles east-southeast of Bermuda. Try combining short sentences to smoothe out the rough edges, which provides for better writing. You should describe that out of season storms, and, if indicate the frequency of a storm persisting into the off-season. All in all, pretty good, but due to the lack of effects my standards are higher before placing this at B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reminds me of looking at comments from an English essay! Anyway, if articles like this need to have a high standard of work, is it ridiculously hard to get it to B or even a GA? RaNdOm26 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it shouldn't be redicuously hard, but it should take some time and effort to make it good. The stakes are higher. No-impact storms aren't needed at all, so if they aren't well-written, there'd be little harm to just merge it... no info lost. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And how can I expand on them??? Unlike the storms in 2005, there were no records broken about the 'earliest storm recorded' thing that are present in those 2005 articles. And I vvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrrryyyyyyyy highly doubt there were any tropical storm/hurricane warnings issued to any land mass, not even Bermuda. I have thought of expanding, but there is nothing TO expand. RaNdOm26 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, you really have of think carefully before you write. I think you wrote that because the only storm articles currently that didn't have any impact on land are the storms in the Atlantic in 2005. They happen to have many records broken, mainly on that "earliest storm formed" thingy. But this one is in 2004, and there were no records broken for any of those storms. Anyway!!!!!!!!! RaNdOm26 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: What now can I add to this article??? I like a challenge. RaNdOm26 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and get rid of some of the technical, unneeded units (knots, UTC timing). Wording can be improved in places (frontal structure vanished?). You should avoid phrases like "According to the best track data". Why can't you combine the sentences and say something like, "The extratropical low gradually lost its frontal character, and organized into a subtropical storm on November 29 while located 1150 miles (1850 km) east-southeast of Bermuda." You lose no information, yet it provides more consise writing, along with being easier to read. Try and combine shorter sentences throughout the article. Also, the records section could use some tweaking. Would it be worth nothing that the 2004 season was one of only 14 seasons that had 14 tropical storms or more? (Nicole was subtropical and excluded from that) Another satellite image would be nice... the bottom right part of the page is a little lacking. Good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?! I'm surprised that you didn't want the UTC times in the article, I thought it gives the article some exact, precise info. I really thought that the record thing you said about "one of only 13 seasons" (actually it was 13, not 14) belongs to the main season article (2004 hurricane season), not in this one. And......please don't ask me to upload AN image!!!! I have no hope with that. Overall, I am really trying my hardest. RaNdOm26 15:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exact times aren't needed, and they can be confusing for people. Typically, a tropical cyclones moves so slowly that it doesn't do too many notable events in one day. The record thing should be in the season article as well, but it is relavent to this storm as well. You should still get rid of the knots; countries use mph or km/h, while fishermen use knots. Knots are a little confusing as well, and because the average person reading the article probably would know mph or km/h more than knots, they should just be removed. Whenever you start a new paragraph, you need to indicate the month (On November 29) and the storm name. Thus, starting with "On the 29th the cyclone..." doesn't work well. "On November 29 Subtropical Storm Otto..." works better. LOL at the images, but you can't be afraid of them. You'll need to do it sooner or later. Here is one of the storm before becoming tropical. Here's one of it on December 1. There's plenty of pics out there. Maybe even find another one to replace the infobox one. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I don't see what's the problem with using knots. I don't think they are confusing at all, neither are UTC times. I see them all the time in millions of sites. I just don't seem to understand what's wrong with using knots. But, if the standard convention in Wikipedia states that knots are not allowed, I guess I will have to accept it. Oh yeah, and all the times used in Wikipedia such as the times in the history page are UTC times (I think). People will have to know what they mean. RaNdOm26 09:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the thing is, you don't have to be that exact. You probably know knots due to your hurricane knowledge. It's easier to simply have the mph or km/h, for the ease of the non-hurricane enthusiasts who don't know much about knots. For UTC times, they aren't needed, either. You don't need the time of day for hurricane articles. As I said above, hurricanes move so slowly that don't do too many notable events in a day. If something happened at 12Z, then say on X day, Otto did this. If, by chance, something else happened on X day, you could say, On X day, Otto did this, but Y hours later it did Z due to. Sure, people might know what they mean, but it just clutters the article, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: From the way this discussion is going, it seems impossible to get this article to a B. :( Funny, you said this article was close to a B in the beginning! Oh, well. RaNdOm26 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, even though Wilma did those things in a short amount of time, there's still no reason to list the UTC times. You could say, "Late on October 11, Hurricane Wilma began a period of rapid deepening that resulted in a 78 mbar drop in only 10 hours". You don't have to give the time of day, just the amount of time. I'll tell you what, once there's one more image in the article and no more UTC, I'll bump it up to B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do #2 

message: What words should be discarded for this article to be less technical. RaNdOm26 07:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical

message: Should the areas affected be open Atlantic Ocean, or None? I personally think that it did not affect no places, and I'd rather reiterate that the only place it affected was the ocean than have none. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way ahead of you - see the WPTC talk page. – Chacor 13:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Link here. – Chacor 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO. This is hilarious! RaNdOm26 04:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas affected 

message: I just thought I should bring up the discussion. The storm didn't affect anyone, and all of the sources from the NHC. Worse, the storm really wasn't notable. Unlike other off-season or late-season storms that are notable for their intensity or duration, Otto was fairly run-of-the-mill. Even the lede can't assert any importance - "Tropical Storm Otto was a tropical storm that formed during the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season." I propose it be merged. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Substituted at 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment