Talk:Hurricane Danny (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Danny (2003) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Danny (2003) 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.
Featured topic star Hurricane Danny (2003) is part of the "2003 Atlantic hurricane season" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
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 expanded lead section, and would be benefitted by a color MODIS pic. Titoxd(?!?) 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Contents

[edit] Todo

Use more than the TCR. You should mention that early forcasts never predicted Danny to strengthen much. Also, there's a possible record. Didn't Danny become a hurricane further north than any other July storm? That's something worth researching. I'm also pretty sure it caused high seas on Bermuda. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There, I finished redoing it. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice one. Where did you find the record? Or did you search through the entire HURDAT catalogue? Pobbie Rarr 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yea, I searched through the entire Hurdat catalogue, but it didn't take too long. All I did was go to Unisys and look at each year. If the first storm was in August or September, I hit backspace (taking only a second). If the first storm was before August, I looked to see if it was a hurricane (if not, backspace took only a second). If it was, then I looked individually at where each pre-August storm became a hurricane. The next closest, IIRC, was the 1959 Escuminac Hurricane, which reached that intensity at 38.4. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just upped to B, but I don't know why this is a GA nom. IMO it could still be better... – Chacor 03:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll need to read a bit more re. GA nom. – Chacor 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

I pass this article on account of three reasons, which were executed quite well. They are A(A well referenced article), B) while the references include many statitics, it is written in the form of An article and C) it is rated BClass article. The only failing criteria I based on is images, which could go along with the Impact and Record section. It is not only well-written but is an article that stays on the topic with sections that are necessary. The lead section could be enhanced but it does tell you the date of the event, which is the significant. It explains what season it came from. The lead gives some points on what the article is about, a category 1 hurricane.

The hyperlinks in the text such as banding features and wind shear, were rightfully specified. Their futhermor are some minor things to specify. This article is could be a little more stable. Its only been around for a month a two days. And edits change like "Stock Markets". Also I do fell that the fact that Danny did not affect land is important but didn't have to be reinstated in the text. This article again accurately references the statistics of Hurricane Danny, but should display the actual statistics on the article. Needs more external links. And last, this covers all the aspects of Danny, in the since that its damage was fair.

Now I'm going to do a quick look at review.


  • Support - the use of unknown terms, the date of the event and how it progress.
  • Support - Needs to add more external links, and pictures. Needs to add statistics.

And that's all

Showmanship is the key 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Those two external links are the two most important links that should be in that section, as nothing else would really fit there. Being the two primary links I used, anything else would be useless. Any other pictures would be low-quality satellite images of the storm at a weaker intensity, as there was no damage to have damage pics. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up to A-class?

Anyone else agree this article is there and close to passing an FAC? CrazyC83 02:20, 23 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 added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)