Talk:Hurricane Felix (1995)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Felix (1995) 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 Felix (1995) 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 March 15, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 6, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 22, 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 has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

[edit] Todo

Some will question this article's existence. I don't really have a strong opinion. It does sound like it's more notable than Hurricane Gaston (2004), however. — jdorje (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, B class on the first try. Cool! The reason for the aticle is the extensive preparation for an area that rarely sees hurricanes, as well as the effects a hurricane can have without making landfall. Hurricanehink 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an excellent article for an underrated storm. Those are the kind of storms that really need to get people's attention - because who knows, maybe next time it will come in? Also 8 deaths with little damage is quite unusual; it was quite deadly in the open water. CrazyC83 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I thought it would be an interesting article to write, especially given the level of preparation. I added damage totals. Hurricanehink 11:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Found a lotta damage in Maine. Much better now, I think. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 18:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review?

I can't think of any way to really improve this article even thought it's supposed to be the GA collaboration of the week, should we just put this up for peer review? Homestarmy 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Tarret 16:14, 9 September 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 also be beneficial to go through the article and add access dates for 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) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)