Talk:Hurricane Gustav (2002)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hurricane Gustav (2002) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||
|
||||
 |
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. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-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. |
Contents |
[edit] Merge
Too little info. Nearly all of the information is in the seasonal article, and this storm is not nearly notable enough. Hurricanehink 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly agreed. In fact, I may merge it right now... -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Todo
More info is needed. This site has some useful information, including the damage total ($409,000) and some indirect deaths. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- It says the page cannot be found. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, that site went down back in June. You can use the direct data from the National Climatic Data Center, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wakefield, VA post-cyclone report - this should probably be included. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category?
Which is the actual Category of Gustav. In the 2002 atlantic hurricane season page says that it was 1 but here says it was 2. Which page is right? This, the 2002 one or neither? juan andrés 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- When in doubt, check the NHC page. In this case the max windspeed was 85 kts (=100 mph, Cat 2), though this wasn't at the time of minimum pressure hence the confusion. It's fixed.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA passed
- 1. Well written? Pass
- 2. Factually accurate? Pass
- 3. Broad in coverage? Pass
- 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images? Pass
Out of curiosity, was there any other response to the incident other than the cordonning off of some area in New York, if so, then it would be a nice addition to the article. As for the article, it passes all of GA's criteria and is an informative chunk of well-organized text. Lincher 02:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
