Talk:Hurricane Kate (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Kate (2003) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Kate (2003) 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.
Featured topic star Hurricane Kate (2003) is part of the "2003 Atlantic hurricane season" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Merge talk
 The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

[edit] Todo

Very stubby. Nothing more than what's already at the seasonal article Probably qualifies for a merge, too. – Chacor 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Irfanfaiz has a nice storm history here. Maybe we could use that storm history. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not doin' it. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be kept, it needs sourcing throughout, and fewer stub sections. Trivia and naming sections are unneeded, though the fact that it was the longest lasting storm in the season (if it is true) could be put in the intro. NHC discussions should be used, emphasizing the difficulties of the storm; first advisory strengthened it to 60 mph in 48 hours, in actuality it was only 40; few forecasts of strengthening to hurricane first time; early forecasts failed to indicate a turn back to the west; restrengthening to reach peak of 125 mph not anticipated while moving westward; etc. Basically, more info in general (impact too). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone, please merge this already. – Chacor 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? A better request would be for someone to expand it already. It doesn't need to be merged, just stuffed. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just finished completely redoing the article. It's more than a stub (probably around B class), and it shouldn't be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Provisionally tagged as start. The intro is a bit long for such a relatively short article... – Chacor 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a problem with having a long intro? What else is needed for B class? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You could provide a link for "tropical wave", "subtropical ridge" and "anticyclone" in the intro. And maybe abbreviating "miles" into "mi". RaNdOm26 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:LEAD re. length of intro. Not much more, are there rainfall images (either HPC or TRMM satellite ones) available? Also, this may just be me, but I think the TCR is over-cited (is there really a need to cite "Kate turned to the north and northeast"?) Also, there is no need to do any such abbrieviation. – Chacor 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I read it. It's two paragraphs, and that's appropriate for this length. There are no rainfall images to my knowledge (checked, unless I missed it). The TCR might be over-cited, but that is where I found that particular information. I believe that every last statement in the body of the article should be sourced. The source before and after that were only discussions, and they didn't mention it turning north and northeast, so I cited the TCR. Anything else for B? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead is 15% of the whole article. I still think that's a bit long. Otherwise, should be a B-class, although there are minor mistakes here and there (I spotted a referencing mistake while calculating the lead, haha). – Chacor 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it really that big of a deal? The lede longer because it is mostly storm history. Look at Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Its lead is 25% of the whole article, yet it's a GA. The article is comprehensive (I doubt whether there's more than 2 useful sentences out there that are not in the article), it's completely sourced down to the smallest detail. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? Might as well change "km" into "kilometre". RaNdOm26 14:48, 5 October 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

Good and clean written article, appropriate GA size (regarding the comment above) and well described without redundancy. Lincher 13:40, 15 October 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 update all of the access dates of 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) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)