Talk:Hurricane Flossy (1956)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hurricane Flossy (1956) 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 February 6, 2007.
February 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Todo

More storm history. →Cyclone1→ 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article is not progressing fast enough for your liking, you can help out. Thegreatdr 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flossy or Flossie

Which one is it? The article uses both. 207.203.80.14 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Flossy. Man, why does this article have both!? RaNdOm26 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Because when a request was put in for this article, it was spelled with an ie at the end (tropical cyclone project mistake). I found out a little later it ended with a y...I should have checked to make sure as I began the article. Thought I'd changed it all over to the y form. If I missed some occurrences, I'm glad you made the change. Thegreatdr 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths

Why is there no mention of the 16 fatalities in the Impact section? And the main article says 15 fatalities, which is it? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead could be expanded with a little more information.
  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.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is very close to GA, but the only problem is the lead. It should be expanded to include the date it formed, the date it became a storm, depression, its peak strength, and weakening. Also, put a few tidbits of damage in. When that is fixed, it will pass. Until then, I've put the article on-hold. Thank you for your work in improving the article thus far, and good luck in improving it to GA status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. I've also added a couple links to a new See Also section, which are relevant. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead could be expanded with a little more information.
  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.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Ok, now that the lead was expanded with more information, the article meets all criteria. Thus, it passes GA. Thank you for your hard work in improving this article to GA status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)