Talk:Tropical Storm Frances (1998)

Todo

Grammar/Spelling is a major problem. A Texas section and a Louisiana section would be nice for the impact section, provided much more is added. One easy way to have particular sections is dividing meteorological observations between the 2. For example, the first paragraph in the Louisiana section would describe rainfall totals, wind totals, and storm surge, if that occurred. The next section would describe the damage and deaths with detail. More pictures would be nice (here is a rainfall pic), or a damage picture. Hurricanehink 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put a Texas and Louisiana section but for some odd reason, the Texas section dissapears when I save the file. Storm05 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. It worked fine for me. I went ahead and did a copyedit. Hurricanehink 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

McRae Lake Dam

I don't know if anyone can find an actual news reference, but I can personally attest this storm destroyed the McRae Lake Dam northwest of Conroe in Montgomery County, Texas. Its a relatively minor dam, so far as I know it was just for creating an artificial lake and it was not a hydroelectric dam. This is the lake: https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Conroe,+TX&ie=UTF8&ll=30.386981,-95.336695&spn=0.017584,0.040169&t=h&z=15&om=1

The foundation for the dam eroded away and a 15 foot or so section was washed away, greatly accelerating flooding below the dam that was already overflowing.

I moved out of the area in September 2001; the dam was /still/ not repaired by then, but its my understanding it finally has been. I think a dam break, even a minor dam, might be a significant enough event to include if someone could find a news article about it. I've tried googling but haven't found anything. :/ --Chibiabos 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

References are now in a similar format throughout the article, and additional information has been added, specifically in the form of a preparations section and expanded impact section for Texas. I think the article finally has enough information for B class. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Frances (1998)/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 soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Just to check, you are consciously using a fully-referenced lead, yes? Personal preference here, I think.
   • The lead could stand to be expanded a little bit with a couple of sentences on the meteorological history of the storm.
   • In the Texas section, you say "Sections of the Middle Texas coast, closer to the point of landfall, and Golden Triangle of southeast Texas" Is Golden Triangle a city or an area? Perhaps wikilink if possible.
   • In the Texas section, you say "San Luis pass pier" Should pass be capitalized?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The last part of the Lack of retirement section needs a ref

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There is a hidden comment in the Louisiana section about adding more content. Is this still relevant?

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:

Just a few minor comments, so I'm putting the article on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was apparently half asleep while working on GAs this morning, as I obviously went ahead and passed the article after telling you I was going to put it on hold. I'd still like the issues above to be rectified, but I'm not going to pull the GA over it. Sorry about that! Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns should be addressed now. Thanks for the review. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexico info missing

The article could be in jeopardy of maintaining its GA status. I found some info while researching Javier 98, and it appears that Frances was responsible for $63 million in damage and 229 deaths in Chiapas. Here is the link. Javier had a bit of influence, but the paper says Frances was the primary reason there was the flooding disaster there. Granted, that wasn't from Frances's main circulation, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to have an article on 1998 Chiapas flooding, or something. However, without that info even mentioned, the article isn't complete. Basically, should that info and stuff be counted here, or should it gets its own article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to this next Tuesday-Thursday, my next set of days off. If anyone wants to tackle this sooner, feel free. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an article on the December 1992 nor'easter, but I'll help tackle it later. I'm finally expanding my focus to do more than just TC articles to also include nor'easters and floods :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooooh. Interesting indeed. I have a couple GAs in the non-tropical storms project. It's not much different than the TC project, except for the lack of a unified source (such as NHC). This does make it more difficult to create articles of the length TC project people might be accustomed to. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that was why I wasn't keen on doing on it at first, but I'm fine now not having a unified source. If the events are notable enough, then a unified source isn't needed. There'd likely be great journal reports on them anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On systems with major impact, yeah, so you won't have to worry about notability. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tropical Storm Frances (1998). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004183147/https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998frances.html to https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998frances.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121013903/https://www.srh.weather.gov/hgx/projects/frances98/rivers.htm to https://www.srh.weather.gov/hgx/projects/frances98/rivers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)