Talk:Hurricane Daniel (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hurricane Daniel (2006) 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.
January 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

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

See also:Talk:Hurricane Daniel (2006)/Archive 01

Contents 1 GA passed 2 Good Article Assessment 3 General comments 4 The 61st Hurricane Meeting Request For Daniel

[edit] GA passed

In the words of Mitchazenia-"It's Hink's writing." Juliancolton (talk) ^{(Happy New Year!)} 14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Good job.

Relisted due to improper GA passing. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will, but if you want, I can review it again, and this time the right way. I tried to do it last time, but my computer crashed halfway trough the process. I will make sure to stay away from reviewing if you want. Grrr-Do I do anything right? Juliancolton (talk) ^{(Happy New Year!)} 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd rather have another user review it, so there is a more widespread view. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Assessment

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   (no edits wars etc.)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Here is a greater analysis of my findings:

• I can find no original research, however the lead contains no references, but as there are no major citings, I am willing to view it as a minor. Y
• All images were appropriately tagged. Y
• There was a use of images, which helped improve the readability which was already good.Y
• Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me. Y
• All references used were independent and reliable. Y
• There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)Y
• The prose was very good. Y

[edit] General comments

This is a good article, and I am willing to pass this article on the basis that references in the lead will either not be seen as relevant or will be improved by the nominatin editor. If you feel this review was in error, feel free to take it to good article reassessment. Well done to the editors involved. Rt. 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 61st Hurricane Meeting Request For Daniel

Although I'm not doubting whether or not the name was proposed, my question is whether or not the source in the article was to sum up the name "Daniel" and all associated storms or just this one. I ask this because no less than FOUR storms named "Daniel" came close to or affected Hawaii (1982's passed northward through the islands, 1994's dissipated just southeast of the Big Island, 2000's veered north of the islands but still triggered heavy surf, and this one's remnants caused damage to the islands). I'll guess that 1994's was the first possible in the request, because of the request to retire Emilia and Gilma (none of which neared the islands since 1994 while 2000s John did) as well as 2000's Fausto (the only storm with that name to come near the islands), which did nothing from what I know other than the reformation. Should we keep the source here, but mention it didn't specify whether or not it was this Daniel, switch it to Daniel's disamg. page, or add it to any other potential Daniel pages (such as a possible Hurricane Daniel (2000) should one ever be made)? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I was waiting for this to come up. OK. There was a previous link that said CPHC requested the retirement of Daniel because of both the 2006 storm and the 2000 storm. However, the link went dead, with no replacement by the WMO, nor any links in the Wayback machine. This link was for the 60th meeting, and this link has been prepared for the 62nd link. So, it was both, in a sense. At the very least, the name was still requested to be removed, as supported by the link, which is still relevant to this article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)