Talk:Hurricane Elida (2002)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hurricane Elida (2002) 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 January 18, 2008. | |||
|
||||
 |
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. |
[edit] Records
I researched through the EPAC best track, and Elida set these records for Pacific hurricanes. Note: I did not include Patsy 59, as its entire duration is not available, not to mention that it was pre-satellite times.
- Shortest time from developing to Category 3 status - Elida 02 - 30 hours
- Shortest time from developing to Category 4 status - Elida 02 - 36 hours
- Shortest time from developing to Category 5 status - Elida 02 - 48 hours
- Shortest time from being named to Category 3 status - Elida 02 - 24 hours
- Shortest time from being named to Category 4 status - Elida 02 - 30 hours
- Shortest time from being named to Category 5 status - Elida 02 - 42 hours
--♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Todo?
Even though I'm already upping it for Good Article status, what would this article need for FA, if anything? Jake52 My island 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although heavy waves triggered by Elida were able to reach Mexico, no damages or casualties were reported in relation to the hurricane. Change that sentence to say waves were able to reach the Mexican coastline, rather than Mexico. Juliancolton (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jake52 - if you're interested in FA status, you should try for a peer review. I recommend you expand the lede (add more about the storm history), add the records I listed above (which you could cite the EPAC best track), split the SH into four paragraphs (the three paragraphs are huge), add non-breaking spaces (see this in edit window - 24 hours instead of 24 hours), and go over the writing again, as I don't think it's quite up to professional quality. There are some contractions, and, for example, the phrase "intensity... went down" is a bit vernacular. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sounds like a bit of a tall order...as well it should be. Besides "best article" and "piece of cake" aren't exactly the best of paired phrases. As far as lede, records, non-breaking spaces, and contradictions go, I can handle them. However, I'm by no means a quality copyeditor. Help on the "professional quality writing" is needed and MUCH appreciated. Thanks! Jake52 My island 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Pass, though it could be better. The storm history is a tad long in places, and some sentences could be refined a bit, but all in all pretty good.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Pass.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Good work finding that much information for a storm that didn't affect land much.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images?: Pass
I'd like if there was better unit consistency; if the original unit is rounded, then the converted unit should also be rounded. Overall, good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
