Talk:Hurricane Fabian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Fabian is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Hurricane Fabian has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Todo

More impact. Jdorje 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good site of some Bermuda information. Hurricanehink 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a picture in the above site, any picture in this photo gallery, or any of these pictures be qualified as fair use? Hurricanehink 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am gonna add one thing to the Todo list-that Storm History is very small.HurricaneCraze32 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths

Wouldn't the deaths from the drowning boat be considered direct? NHC always has them be direct, unless some other circumstance caused the crash (for example, in the 2002 Henri report, one person drowned when his boat crashed, but intoxication was evident and the death was considered indirect). Hurricanehink 12:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those deaths were direct. I added a deaths table to clarify. — jdorje (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job, but some todo

Good job at revising the article. I think this has excellent potential for a GA (even A or featured) article, but to achieve that better, some things may need to be resolved. For example, some portions may require cleanup, and the article may need to be shortened and cleaned a bit more (though not much). Otherwise, the whole article is perfect as it is, devotes plenty of well-stated detail to all aspects (introduction, storm history, preparations, impact, and trivia), and is well-written. It is also very accurate in most areas. If both of that is accomplished, we may well have a GA, A, or featured article. CapeVerdeWave 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You do mean "A or featured", yes? :P – Chacor 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited my mistake. Sorry for the error! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad my hours of work paid off. Curious, what sections in particular need cleanup? The main reason I included so much detail is to give a more realistic feel. Only going through the basics (X houses were damaged, some people were injured, etc.) makes it feel like the hurricane almost didn't even happen. However, excessive parts can probably be trimmed. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it worked out nicely. Not much really needs to be fixed. The impact section may need to be shortened and made more neat ("clean"), as the long section can induce some portions not sounding smooth when read out loud. The storm history section may also need to be shortened and made neater somewhat. Otherwise, don't remove any details from any portion of the article. Only those portions (storm history and impact) need to be shortened so that the writing flows better, but try to do it without removing any of the details currently in place in those sections. They (those two sections) just need to shortened and organized into smoother writing, and not by much. Other than that, leave the article and the sections as they are, and while shortening and smoothing the flow of the writing in those two sections, don't remove any of the details from them. Just shorten the writing of those two sections and improve the flow of the details in those two sections.

EDIT - Actually, looking over the article once more, the writing does seem to flow smoothly enough, so I don't think any sections need to be shortened now. The article is good as it is. The main reason why I requested two of the sections to be shortened somewhat was that I originally thought, along with smoothing the writing flow, that one of Wikipedia's GA requirements for articles is for them to not be overly long-winded. Actually, however, I like the new style Hurricanehink is adopting for this article. Do not shorten any sections. The article is good as it is. Sorry for the change in my thoughts, but after looking over at the article, I've decided to retract my opinion on shortening two of the sections. Leave the article as it is! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. The only problem right now is the lack of an impact image. This newspaper article or this one has an impact pic, meaning it would usable due to {{tl:newspapercover}}, but they might be so small that it would hardly be seen if the entire page was used. What should be done? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good Bermuda link with plenty of (larger) photos before, during, and after Fabian from all over the island in various parts, and plenty of information on where those pictures were taken on Bermuda and what damages they show, as well as what they show before and during the storm. Since these images are copyrighted, is it fine to add some of these to the article as long as credit is given to this person and site? CapeVerdeWave 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, since they're copyrighted we can't use them at all. If we asked them and got their permission, we might be able to, but worst comes to worst the pics in the article are pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, all true. I knew there would probably issues with the copyrighted images that would prevent them from being added to the article. By the way, what happened to the GA nomination possibility for this article? It seems more than B-class, in my opinion. Are you just doing a peer review before submitting a nomination for GA, A, or FA? Just curious. CapeVerdeWave 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I'll be doing a peer review, and once that's done, I'll FAC it. GAN takes too long, and will probably be shorter if we do peer review right away. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, FAC time. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)