Talk:Hurricane Felix (1995)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Felix (1995) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Hurricane Felix (1995) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

An entry from Hurricane Felix (1995) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March 2006.

[edit] Todo

Some will question this article's existence. I don't really have a strong opinion. It does sound like it's more notable than Hurricane Gaston (2004), however. — jdorje (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, B class on the first try. Cool! The reason for the aticle is the extensive preparation for an area that rarely sees hurricanes, as well as the effects a hurricane can have without making landfall. Hurricanehink 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an excellent article for an underrated storm. Those are the kind of storms that really need to get people's attention - because who knows, maybe next time it will come in? Also 8 deaths with little damage is quite unusual; it was quite deadly in the open water. CrazyC83 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I thought it would be an interesting article to write, especially given the level of preparation. I added damage totals. Hurricanehink 11:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Found a lotta damage in Maine. Much better now, I think. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 18:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review?

I can't think of any way to really improve this article even thought it's supposed to be the GA collaboration of the week, should we just put this up for peer review? Homestarmy 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Tarret 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)