Talk:Hurricane Alex (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Alex (2004) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Alex (2004) 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.
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.
Merge talk
 The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Accuracy dispute

I ain't no shit about meteorology so please someone correct any errors. I copy/pasted the info from the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season article and wrote the introduction from that same information. I'm not sure if the information that I wrote on the introduction is correct or not. Thanks in advance! —John | Talk 19:33, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. You are disputing your own accuracy? -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Watch your language theres other people using this talk page. 164.106.201.50 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light Flooding?

Flooding was not light! The water rose 5ft in less than half and hour!

Where? What basin? When? -- Cyrius|✎ 11:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The eyewall entered Pamlico Sound and there was some moderate soundside surge of 3-6 feet into Hatteras Village and Okracoke. (reference) I also recall local news reports calling Alex "the ambush" because many islanders were not expecting to see Category 2 conditions. Damage was much lighter than Isabel's or Ophelia's mainly because of the angle of landfall and the size and speed of the storm.

[edit] Merge?

Storm not that notable. The article is pretty shallow. Unless more info can be found, I vote merge. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Discounting the storm history section and the trivia (which is too trivial even to qualify as trivia), I agree the impact section is too short to justify an article. Only a little, though. Jdorje 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This article seems like more than a stub, and it did cause damage and ended up being highly unusual in the end. CrazyC83 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then what do you think about Hurricane Earl (1998)? — jdorje (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Earl doesn't have the problem of being in a season with too long of a seasonal article. This could stay, provided more is added. Hurricanehink 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fixes

This article is linked from Hurricane Dennis which will be featured on the front page tomorrow. So we should try to fix this article up a little bit today. — jdorje (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redone

OK, I rewrote the article. Any comments or suggestions? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing major I can see, but several small tweaks. I think "Trivia" is should be renamed, Landfall is currently a disambiguation, pipe to Landfall (meteorology) instead, MODIS imagery is available, some missing metric conversions, if there's a photo of any damage in Carolina it would be nice too and so on... All minor things, its B-class in my view (however you know I might be biased there....)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, got metric. I emailed someone about the NC photo, so I'm waiting on that (no PD ones). I renamed Trivia to records. I changed landfall's link, but I'm not so sure we should be linking there. The landfall page is pretty bad now. So is it B class? And don't worry about the bias... :) Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I like the way things are shaping up. By the time I escape 2005, the 2004 storm articles will be B-class, like this one.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm hoping for. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promoted to GA

I would also work on the prose of the Preparations and Impact sections since it doesn't flow too much when you read it. Lincher 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NWS reports

This is for reference, and if not done so already they should be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (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) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)