Talk:Tropical cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tropical cyclone has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject. The following comments have been left for this page: An article about RSMCs and about Tropical cyclolysis might eventually be needed, but not as urgently. Everything else is listed on Talk:Tropical cyclone#To do. Titoxd(?!?) 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (edit)
This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Tropical cyclone.

WikiProject Echo has identified Tropical cyclone as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian,  Portuguese,  Nynorsk or Chinese language Wikipedias.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: An article about RSMCs and about Tropical cyclolysis might eventually be needed, but not as urgently. Everything else is listed on Talk:Tropical cyclone#To do. Titoxd(?!?) 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (edit)

[edit] To do

Ok, let's list the things that have to be finished before the article should be sent to FAC. Feel free to add to this list, and cross out things whenever they're done, so we can keep a quick checklist of things to do... Titoxd^(?!?) 07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Make sure the article is throughly cited This appears to have been done. Thegreatdr 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see one {{fact}} tag, and I don't know where to get the source.--Rmky87 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know when an article is thoroughly cited. Is it one reference per paragraph? A reference per interesting fact? I thought we'd cited it thoroughly a week or two ago. Thegreatdr 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much when we can figure out where each number comes from, and which opinion came from where. It's getting up there, the only thing we need is the reference for the Greek Typhon. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Found a reference for that. =) Thegreatdr 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! That's good, sadly, I found two parts that need more citations; one I flagged with {{fact}} (we need something to reference that the WPac uses primarily the JMA numbers, and since when they started with those), and the other one is the Physical structure section. That one I'm still looking for a reference, so I haven't tagged it, but we need probably a glossary reference, and a reference for the median size of the eye/eyewall. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And ideally, find a primary or secondary source for Indian cyclones, as Encarta is borderline citable... Titoxd^(?!?) 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found two... so, yeah. I'm crossing out cleaning out references, as they're done. I'm also raising the article to A-Class, as that was the hardest thing left to do. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found several references for the Physical structure section, we now just need a reference for the warm core subheading (to reference "Thus, at any given altitude (except close to the surface where water temperature dictates air temperature) the environment inside the cyclone is warmer than its outer surroundings"; another one for the Outflow paragraph. I think I covered everything else, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Get Tony1 to review the prose after everything is done

I've reviewed the article, and here's a list of things I think should be done before it goes to FA.

• In the times of formation section, does an exact date exist for other season peaks? Also, EPAC info should be altered, given the basin peaks earlier. Per NHC climatology, the mid-point is sometime in mid August.
  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't see where it says that the EPac peaks in mid-August... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The EPAC graph shows that the date for 50th percentile for the storms appears to be August 12 (average date for 8th storm), or about a month earlier than the Atlantic. The 50th percentile for hurricanes is about August 20 (average date for 4.5th hurricane), as well. There's probably an exact date out there, or at least some source saying EPAC peaks earlier. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• History of tropical cyclone naming should probably go earlier in the tropical cyclone naming section
• The dissipation section could use some more examples for the examples given
  • Again, how many examples are too many examples? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be proseified without the two sub-sections. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Ensure similarities among references.
• Check that the tense is the same throughout the article when talking about the overall topic.

It's getting there. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• The effects: move away from the POV: "damaging" and "beneficial", to "direct" and "indirect".--Nilfanion (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We may need to create a tropical cyclone naming page, so we can shrink what is currently on this page to something short and succinct (a paragraph or two). What do you all think? Thegreatdr 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... something like Tropical cyclone scales, or something different? Titoxd^(?!?) 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at second glance, List of tropical cyclone names already generally accomplishes what I was thinking. I'm wondering if we could just add all the minutia in the main tropical cyclone article to List of Tropical Cyclone Names, and possibly rename that article Tropical cyclone naming. Then we could shrink the naming section in this article to make the tropical cyclone article more manageable. Thegreatdr 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be there, although the rename would cause massive breakage all over the place (it is linked from almost everywhere)... so, I agree, some part of it should be moved there. Now, what exactly should be moved? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, we can always recruit a bot to do that. Let's do it. I've moved the renaming section to the Lists of names article, and I'm considering moving other sections there as well. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that someone has created a naming page, the section was slashed down to a paragraph. That should substantially help with the length of the article. Thegreatdr 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Indian Ocean tc naming

I don't understand how it is decided when to name a tropical cyclone in the Northern Indian Ocean. Like Onil this year wasn't even recognized by the JTWC and it got a name, but several stronger storms go nameless. I looked in the article, but couldn't find any info. It should be added if there's a source. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever it reaches 34kts. Storms are always named by the RSMCs and not any unofficial warning centres. P.K. 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Tropical cyclone scales (the primary article for that). Titoxd^(?!?) 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But there's been plenty of storms since naming began that have exceeded 34kts. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming only began in 2004. Any storms since 2004 determined to be 34 kt by IMD gets named. – Chacor 01:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

JTWC calling a storm stronger than 34kts doesn't guarantee naming. It's what the RSMCs acknowledge that matters. —Cuiviénen 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I just took a peek at the page history, and was shocked at how many revisions have gone on in the last 24 hours. Insert appropriate expletive here! In any case, I just wanted to thank you for keeping on with it. samwaltz 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of article

I've reviewed this article (specifically referring to this version). The article on the whole is good, this is a list of problems (I don't need to give us the slap on the back :)). These need to be addressed either in article or rejected as irrelevant through discussion here. The order reflects the layout of the article, not the importance of the points. I've tried to identify content problems, but I don't think I have adequately reviewed those at this time.

1. The article is 111KB total length. This is probably not excessive given the importance of the topic, but it suggests that the lead may be too short. However, more subarticles could only be a good thing.
   1. A small percentage of this article has been removed per repition with existing subarticles, which briefly reduced its size to 94kb a few weeks ago. It has grown since then, however. Thegreatdr 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      1. Its getting there... but still very excessive :(--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. The article has erratic placement of units. For example, the lead uses US Customary (SI); other forms are used elsewhere. The precise measurement scheme used is not that important, but should be consistent throughout unless there is a specific reason for a certain order.
3. Notwithstanding the above, SI (USC) is the preferable format for this article and knots should be used where appropriate.
   1. Agreed, will modify wherever I see that. SI (Imperial) should be the unit order. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
4. The TOC shows a number of problems. The article could do with a reordering. We are as always obsessed with a relatively trivial concept (that is naming) and it comes very early. A systematic reordering would make more sense. IMO this order is logical: Structure, Basin info, Formation/track/dissipation, effects, forecasting (including naming and classification) then the rest. This gives in order: What a TC is, where TCs exist, how they form, what they do and then what humans do with them. The fact a strong TC has an "eye" is more important than the concept of a "Category 5 hurricane".

Done. Hurricanehink (talk)

1. The Classification, terminology, and naming section has a number of problems; not least its name like many section headings throughout it seems clumsy. More precise issues:
   1. Classification refers to three and only three classes of storms: TD, TS and H-equivalent. This doesn't match reality for many of the basins; and is the first real sign of the US bias in the article.
      1. How much is too much detail for this article? At the same time, we use Saffir-Simpson scales throughout Wikipedia, we should at least cover that in detail. WPac is the most active basin, and the differences (typhoon/super typhoon) are covered. Perhaps STS should be as well. But everything else seems overkill. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
   2. Categories and ranking is selective not comprehensive. It mentions the SSHS, JTWC, Aus and SWIO; why not the others?
      1. Because ideally, it shouldn't talk about any. Those should be sent to Tropical cyclone scales. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
   3. This seems like the ideal section for the whole 1-minute/10-minute nonsense. Where is it? The JTWC has published papers comparing the two (dig around on the PTS talkpages).
      1. That is, or should be, on Tropical cyclone scales, again. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
   4. Section is still showing bias - to the WPac and NOAA basins. H-equivalency is called something else elsewhere ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. The next section is 'Origin of the word "hurricane"'. As a subsection is has 'Origin of storm terms'. Do I really need to expand on why this is the wrong way around?
   1. It should be "Origin of storm names" all around. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. There's too much etymological detail here - for this article is suffices to know they are "typhoons", "hurricanes" etc - the origins of the words should be in the subarticles.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. The content of the section runs-on from the previous section. They need merging and reorganising. It appears this part of the layout may have been an unintentional error.
4. The final para of the section refers to the origin of cyclone. This does not refer to its usage to describe TCs (although the storm in question was a TC), but the word itself and the much broader concept.
   1. Should be moved to Cyclone. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Both sections cover current nomenclature issues. An overview of how TCs were known in the past is significant. What did the US do before the SSHS? How and when did "Hurricane" gain its modern meaning?
   1. Subarticle. No need for that to be covered here, it's too much bloat. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
6. The next section is "Major basins and related warning centers". This is long for a section title, something simple and to the point like "Tropical cyclone basins" would do.
   1. Tropical cyclogenesis isn't strictly relevant here; a subarticle like Tropical cyclone basins is more logical.
   2. The section is apparently about the basins, yet nowhere is there a statement like "There are X ocean basins that see (significant) TC development; these are the Atl, NE Pac... We aren't actually told that simple fact explicitly.
      1. Just moved that chunk to RSMC last night. Feel free to bring back some data, not all of it. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
   3. The first section is about the Warning centers, am I missing something? The RSMC/TCWC are important yes. But the basins themselves are more important, the section on the formations (with my pic in it...) should come first.
      1. It was due to the way it was previously organized, before the partial cut to RSMC. The RSMCs were briefly discussed, with a rather-detailed discussion about the basins following that. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
   4. Catarina is being given undue weight. This is probably due to the absence of prose on the main basins.
7. "When Naming occurs". Another bad section title... This belongs with the Classification section, they should be together in the article. A subarticle (not a list) would be good.
   1. The NIO is missed out.
   2. This section seems to address some issues I raised in #9 above. My reading of this section is that it should deal with two things: the evolution of the concept of naming (ending with IMD starting to name) and current practice in each of the basins.
      1. Only current practice should be in this article, IMO. Anything historical should be summarized extremely, and sent off to Lists of tropical cyclone names. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Mechanics and structure both deal with two aspects of the same thing: What a TC is and how it works. Very good, why do we have two full sections here?
   1. Mechanics is how it works; structure is how it is divided. I don't see why they should be combined. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
9. The prose of Mechanics is a bit dense, it could do with breaking up somewhat (subsections).
   1. No, the TOC is long as it is, and how would you split it? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Structure really should have a subarticle. Encyclopaedia Britannica has such a thing, how can we really claim ours is better (that FA implies) without it?
    1. Eye (cyclone) exists, and other subarticles should. Perhaps eventually, but I'm not sure that the article has an inadequate summary. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    Outflow (meteorology), convection (meteorology), tropical cyclone banding off the top of my head don't have articles. – Chacor 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

11. Leaving aside the lack of a subarticle, which allows summary style to feedback here; why is this very important (imho THE most important) section a list?
    1. Why not? Having paragraphs of prose doesn't really accomplish much but require transitions. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Formation has another list. At least it has a real subarticle, can we summarize it back in effectively?
    1. List != bad. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
13. The ITCZ is mentioned. Tropical waves aren't and they are what most hurricanes form from...
    1. Yes, and hurricanes in the north Atlantic and eastern Pacific basin make up between 1/4 and 1/3 of tropical cyclones that reach sustained 64 knot winds worldwide. The monsoon trough/ITCZ is more important globally than African easterly waves. If you want to throw one line in the article about tropical waves, fine. We do not need to say much about tropical waves in this article since they're already talked about extensively in, um, tropical wave. Thegreatdr 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

       Agree. "Another important source of atmospheric instability is found in tropical waves, which cause about 85% of intense tropical cyclones in the Atlantic ocean,[28] and which most of the tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific basin.[29][30]" seems adequate enough for me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

       Only one paragraph is needed for the description of the source phenomena here. Most should be in the subarticle! ITCZ should have primacy, but some mention of TWs is as necessary.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

       I'm lost. Isn't that how the article is laid out currently? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

       Yep, I'm just saying the current level of info is about right. Trimming or expansion of that section would be wrong imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

14. ITCZ and TW may be the two major sources of TCs. How about the minor ones? Like what happened to the perfect storm?
    1. We can't, nor should, go into every single possibility of tropical cyclone formation. Six sigmas. Nobody cares. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Movement and tracks seems pretty good. However, some NHem bias here recurvature happens in the SHem too.
    1. Throw a reference in, and perhaps. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
16. An expanded explanation of the distinction between direct hit and landfall would be nice.
    1. Leave that for Landfall (meteorology). It's rather short as it is. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Dissipation is listified, prose would be better.
18. Artificial dissipation has excessive detail relative to natural. The natural methods happen all the time, Stormfury is no longer current and didn't work anyway. The rest of the section is speculative.
    1. Feel free to hack away. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Observation has a distinct Atlantic bias. This is inevitable given that recon only really happens there now and so most methods are only really available there. However, the layout basically gives "observation of Atlantic hurricanes". The fact only satellite data is used for the most part should be covered, as well as satellite observation itself (Dvorak and other things).
    1. Ok. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Historical means are not really covered. The history of TC observation began with the hurricane hunters? The article almost gives that impression.
    1. Should they be covered? Again, it adds unnecessary bloat. There's a
21. Forecasting deals more with trends in forecasting than how forecasting is done. It also shows recentism, as how was forecasting done in the 20s? Not with computer models for sure ;)
22. Effects.. now IMO this is the worst part of the article in my view.
    1. First off, there's a see also to rainfall climatology. Relevant yes, but where's the subarticle?
    2. There's a list, and not a very detailed one at that. Seriously, prose is VITAL here...
    3. I'm not convinced its comprehensive. Read this. Worthy of inclusion in the "secondary" effects?
    4. Beneficial effects, like artificial dissipation gets bias towards it simply because it is prose. At a glance, we almost seem to be saying TCs are a good thing.
    5. The last para here seems out of place. Hurricane Dennis made Hurricane Emily stronger. Can someone explain to me how this is beneficial? Seriously reducing SSTs is just an effect, it can be good or bad.
23. The notable TC section seems excessive in length to me really. For a start the section title might want reviewing, "notable" is a term best used cautiously on WP after all.
    1. Completely disagree. This isn't AFD. Most of the examples are needed there; perhaps Gafilo and Paka aren't, but they're needed to balance out the NAtl/EPac storms. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       1. Nope of course its not AFD. However, this is a trivia section as it stands. The vast majority of the content should go. The global record holders (Tip, Bhola, Katrina) should remain as should a very limited number of other storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Some of the content in here would best be in an expanded impact section. For example, Paka wasn't that notable but that wind gust is.
25. There's recentism. Gafilo was the worst in 20 years? What was that storm of 20 years ago that was worse then? Surely it would be more notable.
    1. And how would you reference that? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       1. If you know its true, you investigate using dead wood sources. Its absurd to include something like that merely because you can reference that (but not the earlier storm). Content > referencing.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
26. A fewer number of storms would make more sense really, yes it would give more coverage to some of the basins; but that is kind of inevitable given some just have so much more go on in them.
27. I don't think pop culture should be in this section, and certainly not as a bolted on paragraph. If it belongs in another section and not one in its own right (I think it should get it), impact is the logical one.
    1. Frankly, pop culture is trivia and shouldn't even be in the article. Even though I was the one who expanded that section, I think it should be removed altogether. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       1. Pop culture is generally trivia, but cultural impact is probably a significant concept for the impact article (if not necessarily for here).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
28. The long term effects is another section that should be subarticled...
29. I'm not remotely surprised that Global warming rates its own subsection, though I wonder if its truly NPOV (thankfully the only place that arises). It feels slightly pro-Global warming=more TCs to me...
    1. The latest IPCC report pretty much blames an increased incidence of tropical cyclones on global warming. Indicating otherwise would be giving undue weight to non-consensus scientific views, which should be avoided. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
30. It might be an idea to expand the related cyclones, not least to cover transitions between them and TCs.
    1. At the same time, there's enough things to worry about in the rest of the article, that expanding this section while the rest of the article needs to be cut seems to be a Bad Idea® to me. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
31. The see also needs a rethink. It has cross-space links (to category space) and the links to the current seasons have questionable value to the article.
    1. Agreed. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
32. My gut reaction to the ELs is linkspam. Some are truly bad links and should be removed.

Agreed, done. Hurricanehink (talk)

1. The article handles global warming pretty well, but the ELs seem to show some bias...

Done. Hurricanehink (talk)

There that's a lot. I know I've missed a lot, I haven't given an in-depth content review for instance, just highlighting the obvious problems (to me). Likewise, I will have missed minor stylistic stuff. In general, the content feels fairly good but more detail would be better. The image use is great but not perfect (more pics in impact showing the major types for example). The biggest problem I have with this article is this: I'm familiar with the subject matter. I read one section and see that it misses out on a few concepts that should be included and I mentally place them as "should be covered there". Then I read on a bit and find those issues in a completely different section. To me it feels like it has covered those concepts twice as a result; whilst the hard facts are probably mentioned only once. Even with 0 knowledge of TCs I think I would notice the topic bouncing back and forth a bit. In short, there's a lot of specific issues above, but the most needed thing is a full scale restructure of the article, so related topics actually flow together properly.

Oh and a final point. Please Peer Review this before an FAC run. I know WPTC has been unsuccessful on that process with most of our stuff. However, this article is conceptually different to an article on just another storm, the more pairs of eyes the better!--Nilfanion (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair review. I've crossed out the ones that I addressed. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be Peer Reviewed, don't worry about that. However, I don't want this article to have more detail, as we're already way over the line where people begin to complain about WP:AS. A reestructure would be all right, but I'm trying to think how it would be better to reorganize it. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One comment to this. I agree the article is long, however the focus in places is bad: too much info on naming issues, too many examples (you can drop some safely here), not enough impact for example. I think the best way to do this would be to expand adding what's missing and not worry about bloat. Likewise don't worry too much about referencing with this (as long as its true). Part of the problem is many parts of the article have inadequate subarticle support. Adding the info here, then creating the subarticles from the new content and then summarizing back is probably the way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Since someone has created a naming subarticle, I removed everything but the first paragraph of this section. Everything else looked like redudancy from the subarticle. I also placed the table from the categorization article into this one, and eliminated a great deal of text we previously used to describe basin differences. Again, this text looked word-for-word the same as the categorization article. This slashing reduced the size of the article to 94 kb, which seems more manageable. I agree with one of the above sections that the notable cyclone section is large, but don't know how to pare it back any without introducing some basin-centered POV. Thegreatdr 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Section most in need of work: impact. Get a load of content into the to-be-written Effects of tropical cyclones. Once thats done look to see what needs to come back into this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you created a subarticle concerning effects of tropical cyclones, we would only need a paragraph or two concerning the effects in this article. The rest would be covered by the subarticle. The last thing we need for this article to balloon back to its former size. It is almost as large now (99 kb) as it was before my last edit to shrink it down 14 kb. Thegreatdr 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not A-Class

I just ended up here from reading through Hurricane Iniki again, which is today's featured article, and I was very surprised to see that the rating of this article was raised to A-class. I'm not sure I'd even pass it on GA; the organization is very poor and we've still accomplished little in terms of fixing systemic bias within the article. There is also still far too much focus on naming. A-class means that the article has a good chance of passing FAC; right now, this article should barely slip through GAC. I've lowered it to GA-class. —Cuiviénen 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypercane?

....i dont think i need to say more ya likely knoow! But in case you dont here it is: "The hypercane"

• winds 500mph+
• size: BIG!!!
• Power: it will make katrina look like tropical depression # 1

My point: I want to know is the in for on the mega hurricane ok as a subject?--Mr.Taka 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence makes no sense. Also, no such thing, never can happen, never did happen, I don't know what you're talking about. --Golbez 17:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on hypercane. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)