Talk:Tropical Storm Delta (2005)

Tropical Storm Delta (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Merge[edit]

Approve of article I support this article, it should stay seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman90 (talk • contribs)

Keep This storm article should not be merged --24.83.100.214 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; it did do a lot of damage to the Canaries where storms are not expected to... CrazyC83 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Big Keep Delta did better than Epsilon,who doesnt deserve an article. Epsilon made no landfall,Delta did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneCraze32 (talk • contribs)

Keep This deserves an article. Epsilon and Zeta deserves one if Vince gets one, but are they really noteworthy other than surviving four hundred predictions of weakening and the latter surviving a year change? I survived the year change and I didn't get an article.... Bsd987 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

It has too much of a current-event/work-in-progress feel. Bad grammar in the intro is really bad. And hey, it is a work-in-progress since the TCR hasn't been released. Jdorje 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is hard to write top-quality articles without the TCR...plus we need to use the information we have (although it is fairly decent in this case) CrazyC83 05:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCR is out[edit]

same in puessure and wind although they said it may of become a hurricane just not info to prove it Jrc028

better pic[edit]

The TCR report of Delta has a very nice picture of Delta. Maybe we can use that one, too.Icelandic Hurricane 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the current one looks like a dying hurricane. 24.85.161.198 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current one was taken while at its strongest. [1]. I just found a different one without a strong grid running all over it. Good kitty 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from the Canary Islands[edit]

Someone on Storm2k.org's forums posted a website containing quite a few pictures of Delta and its effects on the Canary Islands as it was becoming extratropical, including some damage pictures. --Coredesat 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has moved, [2] Plasticup ^T/C 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain's TCR[edit]

The Spanish equivalent of a TCR, available here, says that the peak gust recorded at Izaña was 248 km/h, which is a whopping 154 mph, and that the 10-minute sustained winds recorded there were 50.4 km/s, or 11.2 mph, making delta more than a Tropical Storm. Anyone else considers this peculiar? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No not really, I have a feeling the explanation is the obvious one - is the weather station at Izaña located at the observatory? If so it is 2400m above sea level; enough said.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Delta would be a Category 4 hurricane.HurricaneCraze32 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo2[edit]

I've upped it to a B; the storm history follows the NHC data now, and the impact refs are all properly chased up. The impact section should probably be expanded, it reads too much like a series of bullet points at the moment (the Tenerife New's archive has enough info). The records section is a bit stubby, perhaps merge it into the impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage amount[edit]

The damage amount in the article should be changed to $140 million+, and here are the reasons why.

1.) The source staes there was At least 108 million Euros in civil and agracultural damage. From what it said in the article 12 million Euros in damages to the infrastructure, which was seperate from the other damage. This comes out to 120 million Euros, and adjusted for exchange rates, that comes out to $140 million

2.) The Tenerife news article was very vague in saying if the civil/agricultural damage total or insursed damages, meaning a range of damage amount from a minimum of $140 million to a maximum of a whooping $714 million dollars

Unrelated, it would be interesting to see the GDP of just the canary islands and see what percent GDP the damage delta did is of it. --Lionheart Omega 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "The regional government put a provisional figure on agricultural and civil storm damage in Tenerife at around €108 million and €300 million in the whole archipelago, though that figure was expected to climb as more information became available." Thats implies €300 million damages (=$350 million) or higher. Yes, its provisional but we don't have a final figure, and stating 350+ is standard practice.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in answer to your comment on GDP, according to Canary Islands the GDP was 25 billion euros in 2001.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for clearing that up, however the infrastructure damage is still separate. The fact that this storm could have caused almost 3/4 of a billion dollars in damge is remarkable. Percentage wise, Katrina's damage equaled at least .5% of the U.S.A.'s GDP. Delta's damage equals at least 1.4 % of the Canary Islands GDP, making in that way, worse than Katrina. In fact percentage-wise, it was one of the worst hurricanes of the year, only behind Cuban damage from Dennis (2.95% of GDP) and Wilma (2% of GDP)--Lionheart Omega 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Emily, in Grenada, did about 25% of its GDP in damage (last year Ivan did more than 400% its GDP in damage)... CrazyC83 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of comparing the damage of Delta against Canary Island's GDP, and then Katrina's against U.S. as a whole, taking into account that most of the catastrophic damage was concentrated on Louisiana and Mississippi (with a combined GDP that didn't reach $300b in 2005) Heimy (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effects in Canary Islands[edit]

Should they be an article for Delta effects in the Canary Islands.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole article? I had trouble just filling four paragraphs. I don't know what we would put in an article devoted only to the effects of Delta in the Canary Islands. Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Delta (2005). 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/20070928055249/http://www.gran-canaria-info.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Dedo%20de%20Dios to http://www.gran-canaria-info.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Dedo+de+Dios

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) 22:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]