Talk:Hurricane Bob (1985)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Bob (1985) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Bob (1985) 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 November 2, 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.
A This article has been rated as A-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.
The following comments have been left for this page:

Needs copyedit of Impact section and pictures if available. Titoxd(?!?) 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)


[edit] GA nom on Hold for 7 days

Hi,

Looking pretty good here. I put a couple {{fact}} tags on it. Just try to look for stuff that people might put in a book report, or that might people say "Really?" and cite the reference. But this article is actually right on the bare edge of passing, just as it is.

I looked as the supplied reference for the phrase "Bob failed to organize significantly..." and didn't see anything about failure to organize. I didn't look at any other refs; did you get them right?

Good work! --Ling.Nut 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I added one source for the intro, but the rest are there. The source is at the end of the section, not at the end of every sentence. The WPTC does it this way. Having a reference for every last sentence would be overkill, so we just put a reference at the end of every time we use the source. The phrase "Bob failed to organize significantly" isn't in that source; rather it is indirectly stated. The source from which it comes from indicate it didn't strengthen, and most of the convection was to the south of the center. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Who am I to argue with WPTC? PASS.--Ling.Nut 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool :) Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-class

Why is it that this is the only A-class article I have seen? Most articles are either GA or FA. Juliancolton (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are 7 A-class articles, which are similar to FA class in quality, but they haven't gone through an FAC run. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So then why don't we send this A-class to FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because an article is at A-class doesn't mean we should send them all to FAC. There are more than 50 articles on FAC, including one hurricane article, and two hurricane articles are on Peer Review. We should focus on them first so we don't overload the FAC system, since the WPTC typically usually gets few comments on hurricane FAC's. That said, as the author, I'll think about taking this one to FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any real difference between A and FA articles? Juliancolton (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. A-class articles can be articles that are relatively short but are still of great quality. Additionally, they might not be quite complete, possibly very long and needs some trimming before going for an FA run, or could be a very well-written article on a non-notable article, for which the FA process would be merely to get the FA star. Since A-class articles should have already passed a GA, they are already included in statistics on good articles (most stats on quality articles on WP refer to articles GA or better), so just going through the FA process to get the star is not desirable in some instances. Not every article needs to become an FA, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought the WPTC project page says the goal is to get all tropical cyclone articles featured. Juliancolton (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That was an impossible goal set a few years ago, and it has been changed. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 8 December 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) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)