Talk:Hurricane Allison (1995)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

Hurricane Allison (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.

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

[edit] Merge

Too little info, not notable enough. This can be easily merged. Hurricanehink 16:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite my extensive copyedit, I tend to agree. Jdorje 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I have posted a merge template. We should have enough consensus to merge it soon. This article should not be. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Agreed. One of the few articles which I believe shouldn't exist. The only non-notable Allison. CrazyC83 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC) With many new articles being created, I decided to get back to work on this one. CrazyC83 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the consensus, what should be kept and what should be cut out? I say a shortened early formation, shortened storm history, and slightly condensed impact section. I just say that because keeping the entire section would negate the purpose of merging it back. Hurricanehink 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All useful info should be moved to the main article section (if it isn't already there) and then the article should be redirected to the main article, standard procedure. Based on the consensus of five users, I deem it appropriate to conduct the merge now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

Any more impact? The article relies on only a few sources, so there's probably more info. Did you check HPC's rainfall map for this storm? That should be added, and it has rainfall for SE United States. Also, the fact that operationally it was a hurricane at landfall should be mentioned. The NCDC probably has more; you should check there. All in all, good redo, but still needs more info for B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know it was operationally a hurricane at landfall. I never went to those sources; I'll do that later. CrazyC83 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea. It was also considered to be the earliest U.S. hurricane landfall in a long time, but not so in the aftermath. The NHC has news reports and local reports that should be worked in. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the rainfall pic, but can you give me the link that mentions allison's landfall as a hurricane operationally? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly just unofficial news reports that don't say it explicitly. In fact, it's mostly things like this, which, by the way it is worded, implies it was a hurricane at landfall, though there was uncertainty. Also, this public advisory just before landfall has it as a hurricane. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There, I added that stuff, but is there a source for formerly being the earliest US hurricane landfall? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Crazy, could you add the NCDC event report information? I consider that a must for any WPTC article. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on Hold

I've put the GA nomination on hold based on my review of the article.

• Well-written- Pretty good - two typos, though overall writing is decent. Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided. The storm history could use another look-through to smoothen things out and make sure everything is there.
• Factually accurate and verifiable - Good
• Broad in coverage - I'd like to see more links that aren't from NHC
• Non-POV - Good
• Stable - Good
• Images - Good, though more satellite images never hurt

Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed from my vantage point. CrazyC83 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)