Talk:Hurricane Hernan (2002)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hurricane Hernan (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 February 23, 2008.
March 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	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.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

This is a solid start-class article. It needs a little more to be B-class: Some more info about records/Cat 5ness/impact if any is available, as well as a longer lead that includes something about impact/naming section. All in all not far from B-class. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to still be a work in progress. Struck through until it is "finished" so a fair todoing can be given. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was done, but I was busy addressing the issues you have pointed out. I added a tad about the records and statistics, so just check back every so often to see how it is coming along. Thanks. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some records and statistics and what impact I could find. Does it need anything else? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's close to B-class. Dates (of the source's creation if available, not the day the reference was accessed) should be added to web/news references (like this: date=yyyy-mm-dd), and make sure that all instances of category (in the context of the SSHS) are capialized, as well as measurements having nbsp's. It could also use somewhat of a copyedit. I'm going to ask for a second opinion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was originally working on a Hernan article. Seeing as you did it before me, I guess I can offer some of the sources I had saved for my article. First, Hernan's remnants were responsible for showers in California that caused slippery roads as per [1], but original predictions had it causing storms, winds, cooling temperatures, and scattered cloudiness per [2]. Finally (here's something you could use for DYK), when Hernan rapidly intensified from named storm to Cat 5, its rate was 1.73 mbar per hour, just under the threshhold for what is considered "rapid intensification", but for a 12 hour period from the 31st to Sept. 1st, it deepened at a rate of 2.58 mbar; within range of "explosive deepening". Source for that is [3] and for the ranges of RI and ED, you can use the glossary of terms on NHC's site here [4]. (EDIT: Didn't know it was already proposed for DYK. It's ok then. Also, if you wish to use it, I have a TRMM image of Hernan on Commons you can use in the article. It's this one.‎) Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, those really help. I will add those when I get the chance. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) I added the picture. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I have been copyediting it somewhat, so it should be better writing-wise. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: References in the lead section, almost everyone forgets those

3. Broad in coverage?: Effects on shipping?

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass, nice images

Overall great article, just needs refs in the lead section, and needs to mention any effects on shipping.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:32, 9 March 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 March 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

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, wonderful

Great job, and man you are quick! 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.— Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)