Talk:Hurricane Joyce (2000)

Todo

A good start, with some really good content. I put the article at C for now, as it's in need of a copyedit. There are a few very abrupt sentences which need to be merged, as well as some awkwardly-worded phrases. A few MoS breaches, as well. In the Impact section, "AM" and "ADT" are usually not capitalized. Also, fix the British spelling! :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed "favoured" to "favored" and decapitalized AM to am. As ADT does not appear in the article, I assume you meant EDT. Are you sure that shouldn't be capitalized? I thought that timezones should be treated just like UTC, which is capitalized. Also, please give indications of which sentences are abrupt or awkward. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I meant "EDT". I'll have a list of general todo here shortly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff:

• • • It then degenerated into an open wave. Stubby sentence, needs to be merged.
    • It would be nice if the lede was longer.
    • It would never change from that general path. Another short sentence.
    • Convection and organization slowly deteriorated,[1] and became, early on September 29, "pretty crummy" and without a well-defined center of circulation, although Joyce managed to remain at hurricane intensity through this time. Not sure the "crummy" bit is necessary.
    • Some more SH overall could probably be written.
    • Trackwise, Joyce was well forecast, with errors ten to twenty percent smaller than the ten-year average. "Trackwise" is spelled with a hyphen.
    • While weakening, Tropical Depression Joyce passed close to Tobago, causing sustained winds of 30 miles per hour (48 km/h). The highest winds any land area reported in association with Hurricane Joyce were reported from Barbados, with sustained winds of 35 miles per hour (56 km/h), with gusts to 45 miles per hour (72 km/h). "Any land reported" could be worded a little better. Also, fix the rounding. For example, 45 mph should convert to 70 km/h, etc.
    • Fix up those and it should be good to get to B. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I added a another part to that sentence.
      • The lead is now two paragraphs.
      • What's stubby about a short sentence? It says all it needs to say. There are some great little things (like jewels), and this sentence is one of them.
      • I rewrote the sentence, although the "pretty crummy" is a quotation from the NHC, and hence I kept it.
      • The meteorological history is a bit longer.
      • Hyphenated.
      • I added |-1| to the windspeeds in the Impact etc. section and rewrote and split the sentence in question.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, up to B. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Joyce (2000)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The last two sentences of the article say "It remains on the name list, but was not used in the 2006 season due to inactivity. It remains on the list for 2012." Is there any way to avoid the repetition at the beginning of these two sentences?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref 13 (Padgett) needs a publisher.
   • Ref 15 (WMO 2000 Hurricane Season) deadlinks.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor issues with references and one with prose, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with these. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyclonebiskit fixed the issue with the last two sentences, and I added a publisher for the Padgett reference. The WMO document seems to have disappeared from the web right now. Here is a Google cache of it [1], but I'm not sure how long it will last. I'm going to see if I can webCite it. If that doesn't work I don't see any options other than removing that information or (unacceptable) leaving it the way it is and hoping the document resurfaces. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It didn't work. Before I remove the information from those references (I couldn't find it anywhere else), I'll wait for a response here to see if anyone has a better idea or a compelling reason leave the article the way it is. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, just let me know when this has been resolved. This is the only thing that needs to be resolved before I promote the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been unable to find the WMO source at the Internet Archive nor find its information elsewhere, I feel like I was backed into a corner by circumstances beyond my contral and left with no choice but to remove information from the broken reference. I have done that now and rewritten a paragraph to make the removal "work". Hence, strictly speaking, I have resolved the above concerns. However, since there was info, which is available (for now) in a Google cache, a not unreasonable case could be made that this article may not be comprehensive enough. If you agree with that, I recommend asking for a second opinion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what Julian has done to the article works. Let me know if you have an issue with it. And, I hate to say this, but your ReliefWeb sources (16 and 17) appear to be deadlinking now... :( Let me know your thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, they seem to be working now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move May 17, 2018

This is the only Atlantic tropical cyclone named Joyce that became a hurricane. Although, I would suggets perhaps if we decide to move this that we might want to wait to see if Joyce forms this year and becomes a hurricane. Cooper 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay this is a no brainier. This is the only edition of Joyce so as of right now Joyce in 2018 is moot point. @Hurricanehink: to be be bold and rop the year without an RM. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true. There was a hurricane Joyce in 1974 in the EPAC, so I oppose this moving. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The East Pacific Joyce is a storm that more than likely nobody knows about. This is a much more recent storm and had a greater impact. Cooper 20:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This storm had no reported fatalities and minimal damage. I don't think it should be moved. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No one knows about this storm either :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Hurricane Joyce (2000)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2000 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.