Talk:Hurricane Alberto (2000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Alberto (2000) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Alberto (2000) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles 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 reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 5, 2006.
Hurricanes
 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.
Good article 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.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Rename

Article should be renamed Hurricane Alberto (2000), since the main article could easily be required for 2006's Alberto... CrazyC83 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I smell a skin-and-bones article. There are very little interesting facts on this storm. And while it did last awhile and strike Iceland as an extratropical storm, that's not enough to warrant an article. This article has little to offer. I say merge it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't even have an "impact" section. Merging it is fine. But merge the storm track in too (the main notability is the distance traveled, so the storm track is pretty useful). Jdorje 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I am fine with that. The only reason it has any length is due to a long storm history, which could be summarized greatly (in fact, I think I was the one who added the history, so sorry :). I vote yes for merge. Hurricanehink 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The question now is, what to keep and what to trim. I think the entire storm history should be deleted, as that can be found in the tropical cyclone report. I think it should keep the first 2 sentences of the intro, as well as the track map, the storm path, and make a link to the 1994 storm (maybe for the last part). Anyone agree? Hurricanehink 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Remake?

If Tropical Storm Lee and Tropical Storm Otto have articles each, should this storm deserve an article too? From what I understand, all storms, no matter what year it formed, deserves its own article, eh? By the way, I had plans for re-creating this article. RaNdOm26 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job remaking the article; I put it at B class. The only little thing is that wording is a little repetitive in places, but in general it's a pretty good article. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks. By the way, I was thinking of putting a "Did you know" thing up for this article? Maybe mentioning the bit about Alberto completing the largest loop ever observed in the Atlantic. Do you think that's a good fact or not???? RaNdOm26 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, sure. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my gosh. I just did it!! **gasp** What have I done?!?!?! RaNdOm26 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, totally awesome! RaNdOm26 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

I'd recommend adding a visible image to the article. Having one of its last peak (while looping) and a visible of its peak would be a good addition. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, the old image was a copyvio SEAWIFS image. I went to look at NRL, but the current pic is the earliest NRL's got - Aug 19. Peak was much earlier than that. – Chacor 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What about MODIS? And you should double check NRL, they have images back to when it was in invest moving off the coast of Africa. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What work can I do now? RaNdOm26 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't see much more. Perhaps images like Hink said. If you think it's good enough you may also want to submit it to WP:GAN... – Chacor 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me. Another image would be nice, however, the good article criteria does say that it isn't needed to have lots of images. "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status" :) RaNdOm26 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, and even if you submit this now, if it meets the criteria (a summary glance seems to think so), it'd pass, but as you said, another image (perhaps from its peak) would be nice. I'll go have a look at NRL again, see what I can find. – Chacor 09:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding images: I've found some from NRL at peak strength, but am getting a 403 Forbidden error when trying to access the high-resolution versions. :/ The low-res ones are here (IR coloured) and here (visible). – Chacor 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • It is more appropriate to have the section Records and naming as prose.

Lincher 17:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Proseified :) Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Nice work on the prose, looks way better IMO. Lincher 02:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)