Talk:Tropical Storm Ana (2003)

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.

Tropical Storm Ana (2003) 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.

Tropical Storm Ana (2003) is part of the "2003 Atlantic hurricane season" series, a featured topic, which means it has been identified as part of one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

[edit] Todo

I put this as B because there's unlikely to be much more to say about it, even though the info given is rather short. Todo: references, impact photos, more on impact, references. Jdorje 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at dozens of search engines.Probably not much more for impact.HurricaneCraze32 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Looks good, couple of things, on hold for now, but I'm being nitpicky...

1. 2nd April subtropical storm in recorded history... could've happened in 1300 but neither of us would know. Actually this is covered later on in the article.
2. Subsection usage is a bit flaky... I just passed Hurricane Marty (2003) despite some sectioning issues. I think I'd drop the subsections entirely or take it up with WP:TROP as to whether or not "Retirement", "Lack of retirement" should be a section/subsection at all.

—Rob (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair objections. For the first one, I'm not sure what I should do, as it's mentioned later in the article. For number two, that is a very good point. In my opinion, retirement should be part of an aftermath sub-section if it is even retired. Unfortunately, that's how we've been doing it for a while (indicate retired or not somewhere in the article). It's pointless, unless the storm did significant damage or something else with names. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The first one is nitpicky but valid, I've rephrased it. I don't think retirement should appear in any form as a section header, unless the storm was retired, in which case its open for debate. In the case of storms such as this, where it wasn't retired; just a sentence at the end of Impact or Aftermath (like Hurricane Irene (1999)) or incorporating that fact into a larger section on Naming issues (like Tropical Storm Matthew (2004)) seems the best way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a form of aftermath. Thanks for the quick response! —Rob (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)