Talk:2007 United Kingdom floods

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 United Kingdom floods article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

2007 United Kingdom floods is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal 2007 United Kingdom floods is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lincolnshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical / Floods High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 - August 9, 2007

10 August

The talk page for this topic up to 9 August 2007 has been archived here. Please commence new threads below.

"British Katrina"

The last line of the lead section states that:

The term "British Katrina" has been used to describe the floods.

The reference for this is a very small part of a long discussion article by a Washington Post writer. The only other use of the phrase that I can find (in this context) is in this web-board discussion. I live along the River Severn, though a bit upstream from the worst-affected areas, and I think it's misleading to imply - as the above line does - that the phrase was in anything approaching common use. Actually, I didn't hear it once during the floods themselves! Loganberry (Talk) 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Loganberry. The phrase is difficult to justify: Katrina killed 1,800 people and cost over $80 billion USD, but the UK floods killed in the low teens and cost ~$4 billion USD. A quick google check throws up very few uses of the term. If nobody registers a strong objection, I will remove the reference tomorrow. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2000

It's a pity that the floods in 2000 ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]) weren't documented on Wikipedia as well as this article for 2007. Jooler 09:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Wikipedia didn't exist yet. Digifiend (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination

Due to the proseline and sourcing issues, I have to fail the GA. It could also use a timeline. CrazyC83 02:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting information which is more suited to a tabular format into prose would have been stupid. I'm glad that the prosify banner was ignored over the last 5 years, and I've now removed it. 213.246.83.13 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues

I've been at a loose end and have attempted to do some work cleaning up the identified missing sources. Firstly, I hope I've not offended anyone in doing so. Secondly, I'm a little unsure as to sourcing this piece of information :

'and the Met Office at RAF Leeming recorded 69.6 mm (2.7 in) in a 24 hour period,{{Fact|date=June 2007}'

It's clear that the met office or BADC (which retains an archive of met office data) will have the required facts. However, the met office will only send out the data via email when subjected to appropriate social engineering and BADC requires you to log in for access. In the interests of cleaning up the current article, I've moved it here for now until resolving on how to proceed with it.

Any suggestions? 88.212.174.4 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to add mention/references to the two major reports that have recently appeared on these events ... and one or both may contain factual information of the above type, for which they can be used as a source. Reports are : "Review of 2007 summer floods" by the EA, (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/47a84ec4020a0a28273fc0a802960646/Product/View/GEHO1107BNMI&2DE&2DE), and the "Pitt review" (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview/interim_report.aspx) both dated December 2007.Melcombe (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...also, should the whole page be renamed to refer to "summer floods" as the above reports may indicate that the event is best known as the 2007 summer floods. Melcombe (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of York

York wasn't flooded in 2007. If the photo was taken in York, it's from the floods of 2000 Thewiltog 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Why, why, why are there two versions of every map? It's just entirely confusing - surely we should stick to the present-day counties for this? Vashti (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because one shows the most popularly known geography and the other shows the relevant local authorities who had to handle the situation. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Flooding

This strikes me as a very peculiar title for this part of the article. As it's almost entirely concerned with the meteorology behind the floods surely something like Meterorological background or Meteorological factors would be a better title for it. Yorkshiresky (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor errors

Reference 153 should now be http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/interim_report.html

I cant work out how to edit it in, sorry. DavidLerner (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]