Talk:Hurricane Danielle (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Danielle (2004) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Hurricane Danielle (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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 6, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/05. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

[edit] Todo

The insanity begins... ;) What's needed is inline sourcing, and a little more outside of Storm History. You could do a Forecasting section by using the tropical discussions. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cape Verde storms tend to have long storm history sections; see Hurricane Irene (2005) for a similar one (of course this needs a lot of work, I did it from scratch tonight - same with Earl) CrazyC83 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, not a bad job do far. The storm history is good, but it needs more than just that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for a seperate forecasting section, that can be interlaced into the rather short history section (on lines of Irene). The intro should be expanded significantly and the non-retirement of the name should be included. And everything should be inline ref'd and {{cite web}}'ed. Pictures too; I'll go hunting for MODIS when I get the chance.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But Irene had at least Impact and naming. Danielle didn't have anything outside of impact, so a forecasting section, while a little redundant, could provide something else. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend you find a way to expand the article outside of the storm history. Perhaps you could mention in the impact section that it was initially predicted to move through the Azores, which would've made Danielle the first storm since Tanya in 95 to pass through the archipelago as a tropical cyclone. However, it remained far from the islands. I doubt it if there is, but did you check if there's any stuff from the Cape Verde islands or possibly western Africa (as a tropical wave)? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

1. 1. It is well written. - yes
2. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. -yes
3. 3. It is broad in its coverage. - covers full event
4. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. - yes
5. 5. It is stable - yes
6. 6. It contains images, where possible... - yes

Comments: The citions should probably use {{Cite web}}, and dates such as August 16 shouldn't be linked. The article covers what happened with the storm, how did the predictions fair for it? Were any areas evacuated? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:42, 7 December 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) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)