Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)

See also: Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)/Archive 01

Todo

First, I put it at Mid importance due to its longevity. OK, I'll just say it. This article is pretty disorganized, IMO. While the inline sources is great, and the writing is good, the structure could be better. Some places go into too much detail, while others don't go far enough. Let's start with the storm history. What happened with the non-tropical low before it became Kyle? Most storm articles give a little pre-history. Phrases like how the NHC didn't upgrade Kyle to a hurricane operationally 6 hours after best track... is that really that important? Wouldn't it just be easier to say something like, "Kyle continued to intensify, and became a hurricane at 1200 UTC September 25, though operationally it was not upgraded until 6 hours later", rather than giving it three sentences? I personally don't like phrases like "then", "however", and "yet another comeback". Could you fix it with sentences that aren't so jumpy? Why was the storm unable to sustain itself after its second peak? Shouldn't there be a records section? Kyle was the only storm, IIRC, that became a TS five times, as well as one of the longest storms in history. Maybe some of the more important forecasting inaccuracies could be merged into the storm history. For preparations and impact, if you don't have too much preparations, shouldn't you separate it by area (Bermuda section with preps and impact, then southeast United States)? More info is also needed in the impact section. You barely mention the tornado outbreak in South Carolina. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the major forecast errors are just as notable as any record. What's so "jumpy" about "then" and "however"? Sentences that are too long are not good either, you know. The TCR makes no mention about a tornado outbreak, and there isn't any information online to cite regarding it. I'm not doubting it may have happened, but to add that in would violate WP:V (similarly, adding in what you said - "Kyle was the only storm, IIRC, that became a TS five times, as well as one of the longest storms in history" - would also violate this, and WP:NOR, without a source). Giving information on the non-tropical stages makes it look too technical (notice the TCR: "Kyle formed from a non-tropical low pressure system in the central North Atlantic Ocean. A cold front moved across Bermuda on 13 September and stalled to the southeast of the island by 15 September. The stationary front gradually weakened and became an elongated area of low pressure by 18 September. A sharp mid-level shortwave trough moved off the southeast coast of the United States and likely acted as the triggering mechanism for the development of a stationary low pressure center by 1200 UTC 19 September about 750 n mi east-southeast of Bermuda. Thunderstorms gradually developed into narrow bands a few hundred miles away from the well-defined low-level circulation center. Surface winds gradually increased to 25 kt early on 20 September and the overall satellite cloud pattern became much better organized" - WAY too much technical jargon), which can be a problem too. Chacor 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could have looked a little. Here is the tornado info, complete with damage pics. You should still make a records section. Kyle was the forth longest lasting Atlantic tropical cyclone. I'm sure with some research you could find if Kyle was the only storm that became a tropical storm five separate times. You should still mention what happened before in your own words. In my opinion, though, the article doesn't flow too well, which is why I suggested combining sentences. True, long sentences can be bad, but they flow better and are easier to read than several short sentences. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a Low importance, referring to the discussion on Talk:Hurricane Linda (1997). Its not number 1 longest and minor impact => low.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed something in this article that has been annoying me recently - UTC times and knot units! LOL. Well, I hope you can consider about removing them because it is too "technical" - I have been through this, so why can't you? If you don't believe me, take a look at this! :) RaNdOm26 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment has been refactored - get rid of the annoying repetitive exclamation points, please. Knot units are not used often, as far as I can see - four mentions (with two of them being the same) - with a conversion next to the first one that's not a problem. No major problem. UTC is not, either, given that there's a single link to EDT as well to help with people who don't understand it. Most realise UTC means Greenwich Mean Time, effectively, though. Timing is important to this article due to its oscillations in strength - some of them happen the same day. Also, your reasoning is flawed. Note that you had to do it does not mean I have to do it. That's ridiulous. Chacor 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no understanding over any of that. Comments from other users would be better. My comments are not ridiculous. I honestly think you don't know what you're talking about. RaNdOm26 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion to both of you two? Read WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:BITE, there's no need to be like this...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you did respond and made suggestions, so thank you for clearing things up. I will try by very best to relax. RaNdOm26 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know some of those policies exist! RaNdOm26 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Longest?

According to Talk:List of notable tropical cyclones, this is not the third longest lived storm. Rmhermen 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in 2002 it was, though a re-analysis in around 2004 indicated a new #1, pushing Kyle to #4. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So the article is wrong? The references and the facts need to be adjusted then. --tomf688 (talk - email) 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just only really have to change "is the third-longest-lasting" to "was", with a sidenote re. reanalysis. – Chacor 11:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats factually inaccurate though. Kyle was never the 3rd longest lasting, it was just thought to have been for a period. All the lead needs is the "fourth longest".--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true. It never was the 3rd longest. I don't really trust the reports very much. Even the report of Alberto says that Alberto was the third longest on record, which is NOT correct. RaNdOm26 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alberto was third-longest operationally, which was the same case with Kyle. Remember that Alberto happened in 2000; storms after 2000 aren't reflected in Alberto's report. Likewise with Kyle for post-2002 storms. – Chacor 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, yeah, so I am assuming now that Alberto is the fourth-longest. That is also factually incorrect. RaNdOm26 05:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is, in 2000 Alberto was treated as having been the third longest lived storm. Storms that lasted longer since then haven't been added to Alberto's TCR. In 2004 a reanalysis was done, which added more storms. Alberto currently stands 7th. – Chacor 05:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Very good job with this article. It has passed the GA article criteria for comprehensiveness, images, references, etc. Hello32020 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

UK death

This claim, included in the extract to go onto the main page, seems severely under-sourced. The only comment about it in the cited reference is the remnants of Kyle were absorbed into a strong extratropical cyclone southwest of the British Isles. No mention of death caused. Is there evidence of shipping authorities or the UK Health and Safety Executive positing this as a direct cause of a death? Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually scroll further down in the cited source to Hurricane Kyle's actual report. It does mention the death under the subheading D. Damage and Casualties. The deep depression associated with the remnants of Kyle caused one death in stormy seas southwest of the British Isles. There were no other reports of casualties or damage as Kyle remained over the open waters of the Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry I didn't read far enough through. Do we know how far offshore this occurred: the lead paragraph, and therefore the Main Page, say "in the British Isles", which would imply at least inshore, if not on land. Kevin McE (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - i dont know where the fatality took place myself, though im sure the primary editor of the article will be able to sort it out.Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Speedy FAC. Make it 8/8. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Kyle (2002). 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/20080906101222/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ilm/archive/10-11-02/kylestats.html to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ilm/archive/10-11-02/kylestats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612002520/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ilm/archive/10-11-02/torstats.html to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ilm/archive/10-11-02/torstats.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)