Talk:Hurricane Edouard (1996)

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.
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Hurricane Edouard (1996) 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.

[edit] Merge(i dont want)

I dont see whats wrong with Edouard and my article on Erika a year later.Both of them were the strongest storm of their year and i dont see the point of taking them away.State your opinion.HurricaneCraze32 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is little information in this article. Not every storm needs an article, and this one had next to no effects. Storm articles that only have a storm history generally don't make it. You should choose a storm that killed more, did more damage, or was more notable than the strongest storm of the season. I notice you are working on a Tanya article, based on your talk page. You might want to think twice about it. You should make sure the article is significantly longer than the seasonal storm information (unless the storm section is very long). If it is more or less a copy and paste, you should simply add any new information you have to the season article. Hurricanehink

I agree with the merge. Rather than making new articles with bad grammar and little content, we should work to improve the grammar and content of existing articles. If you're looking for something to do, there are well over 100 Atlantic hurricane season articles that could use some copyediting. (No offense, but the grammar and wikification of this article, as with many of the articles you have written, is atrocious.) Jdorje 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

its nice but i did find some more information.HurricaneCraze32 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(I do not have atrocious writing.Sure, English may be my bad subject. But its better to get practice. I've been working on these for days. I have a 1995 Tanya article which aint done.HurricaneCraze32 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The writing is poor, and wikification is nonexistent. See [1] for how I improved it. And yes I agree it is good to get practice. One place to start is by using good writing even when editing talk pages. Jdorje 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

True. I'll admit, when I first started writing, people ripped my writing apart. As time goes by, though, it does get better. One thing to remember is to get the hurricane name right. A few times you called this storm Eduardo. One thing you can try is writing it in Microsoft Word, or another wordpad you have on your computer that uses spell check. Hurricanehink 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

HurricaneCraze, I hate to be the bad guy here, but look: It's a non-notable storm, the grammer, spelling and sentense structure are pretty bad, the Wikification just isn't there. Just stop and talk with us about it before creating these articles. Bring it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones It would cause all of us less heartburn. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You should work on a project that involves existing articles; maybe adding information to stubs. Typically, only important storms get an article. Though important is objective, generally it causing many deaths (25 or more), much damage ($100 million or more), or historically notable. If you ever have any doubt, ask. Hurricanehink 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

OK, I restarted the article. What more is there to do? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

well an interesting impact of the storm is that at the time there was an effort to raise a section of the hull of the titanic for preservation...and of course...eduard steered straight for the location of the wreck. So they had to cut it loose and try again later...I saw it on one of those discovery channel documentaries...so there's a slight chance there might be something about it on their website...not sure though...Dr Denim 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)