November 2000 Hawaii floods was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Almost B-class, it's just missing some actual impact statistics, such has people affected, homes flooded and the such. The NCDC has a few bits about the flooding as well as info on the other Hawaiian Islands. [1][2][3][4]Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article, I disagree with how the article is handled. It seems to be describing a flooding event that was loosely associated with a tropical cyclone. There are plenty of sources that cover the event, just not linking it to Paul. Just because it was loosely linked to a tropical cyclone does not mean it should be a TC article.
Flooding articles are structured differently. The Paul article is about two different events - a weak tropical storm, and a major flooding event. I think the MH should focus on how the flooding event happened, not a comprehensive account on a weak tropical storm. Can we discuss this further before its GA review is finished? --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could definitely add more stuff on how the flooding event happened. But, IMO we can keep the stuff about the weak tropical storm. I disagree with you, it is a TC because the storm came from a TC. YETropicalCyclone16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there is so much missing, I suggest the article be failed on comprehensive grounds. That aside, no, the focus of the article isn't about a TC - it's about a flooding event, and you can't really disagree since that is the only reason why the article was created (notice the first edit). The article is just improperly focused. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The flooding event was caused a tropical cyclone or its remains, so it is not inappropriate for the MH to be about Paul. I put the article on hold for now as I think the article could be improved within the next five to seven days. I do not know about you, but I think more should be mentioned about how the flood was caused. Ill add it to the review list. YETropicalCyclone16:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the flooding event was loosely related to its remnants. A bit about Paul can certainly be mentioned, but the flooding event simply wasn't Paul. It was moisture from what was once a tropical storm that combined with an upper-level low. It's a bit of a stretch to call the article "Paul", when most Google hits simply call it the "November 2000 Hawaii flooding". It is rarely, if ever, called "Paul". --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November 2000 Hawaii flooding is not how we title flood articles. Flood articles rarely include the month. We can redirect 2000 Hawaii floods to this article. However, the HPC list this graphic under Paul 2000, so this is why I think we should keep the title. However, I will not horribly object to 2000 Hawaii floods. YETropicalCyclone17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the official name of the flooding event, only for a weak, short-lived tropical cyclone. "November 2000 Hawaii floods", while not the official name, gets the most hits, and is the name used by the USGS, the government of Hawaii County, and the University of Hawaii. The NHC doesn't even mention Paul's connection with Hawaii, nor does the CPHC. Unless anyone else disagrees, I am going to move the article to "2000 Hawaii floods". --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, move it. However, I think the hurricane template should remain up there as well as the 2000 Pacific hurricane season category as the flooding was caused by a tropcial storm's remains.
Wait, before you move, I am not real certain at the moment were I stand on whether or not to move it, so neutral. How about we tone the article on Paul down slightly, and then branch an article of by the flooding event, similar to how the "Nor'Ida" and Hurricane Ida article was created. But I do agree with YE, I think that the flooding should be called "November 2000 Hawaii floods" if moved, as it only occurred during November of 2000.--12george1 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal separate article. I think it is a brilliant idea think that is a comprise. BTW, it is something I never would have thought of myself. YETropicalCyclone
Just restart from this, way too many colons for me to count to reply to that. I think I should drop the GA for now, since several tweaks will be required and the article will probably look like crap sometimes during this process. Here is what I suggest on the split/move process: create a sandbox for the "November 2000 Hawaii floods", and see how much info that you (or me if I can the sandbox) can come up with. Continuing on, create the article and remove some of the minor details from the Tropical Storm Paul article in order to avoid a merge and restart the whole process.--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why does there need to be two articles? (is that the plan?) It's just a really simple move. Once done, only the MH would have to be changed, to reflect the overall flooding event (how long it lasted, what caused it specifically). --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs look a little on the long side. You might want to split them up
Any additional impact?
"Since none of the flooding damage occurred while Tropical Storm Paul was a tropical cyclone, the name Paul was not retired by the World Meteorological Organization following the 2000 Pacific hurricane season, since the storm itself had no affect on land." this should be removed
"Tropical Storm Paul was the second wettest tropical cyclone on record for Hawaii, as well the third rainiest in the history of United States. The twentieth tropical cyclone and eighteenth named storm of the 2000 Pacific hurricane season, Paul developed on October 25 from a tropical disturbance situated several hundred miles southwest of Mexico." kinda of a big sentence? Uou might wanta fix it. Also, should'nt was be changed is?
"Shortly after emerging from the ITCZ, a system that resembled a tropical wave entered the vicinity the area of disturbed weather, having been in the western Caribbean Sea on the previous day." this sounds confusion. That should be mentioned first if it happened first? or am I missing something?
" The tropical wave-like featured contributed to development, and convection associated with the system began to consolidate, after heading further westward.[1]" tropcial wave like feature?
"By October 25, satellite images indicated that a low-level circulation had formed, and the system developed into the eighteenth tropical depression of the season at 0600 UTC,[1] although it was not operationally classified Tropical Depression Eighteen-E until 2100 UTC.[2]" Sentence is kinda long IMO. You might want to brake it into two.
"Convection began to become more persistent, while Dvorak intensity estimates indicated sustained winds of 40 mph (60 km/h), and Tropical Depression Eighteen-E was upgraded to Tropical Storm Paul on October 26 as a result" no need to say the number, you might want to just say "the depression". "as a result" should be moved to the "and" part of the sentence
"Tropical Storm Paul quickly attained its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 45 mph (75 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 1003 mbar (hPa; 29.62 inHg).[1]" IMO I have had enough of the wording "Tropical Storm Paul". Make that "Paul"
"Near Ka Lae, which is the southernmost point in the United States, rainfall was reported at nearly five in (127 mm)." no need for which is.
