Talk:Hurricane Linda (1997)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Linda (1997) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Linda (1997) 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.
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.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Pressure

I'm so confused. UNISYS gives me two low pressure figures: 900 and 902...which is it?

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

It is 902. 900 is the value given operationally (an estimate given in one of the reports while the hurricane was active). 902 is given in the post-analysis in the TCR, and is what the best-track shows. Jdorje 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Compare: TCR - gives 902, 1997 tracks, from advisories - gives 900, 1997 tracks, from best-track - gives 902. Jdorje 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if

Good call on the deletion of the What if section.... As for the pressure, the NHC official report says 902, which is what I based my info off of. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997linda.html Hurricanehink 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

UNISYS is unofficial; NHC is official... Jdorje 06:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Why does it need an infobox? What needs to be done differently? Hurricanehink 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

I dunno, the articles just too short... Jdorje 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Is this really low? Linda was the strongest hurricane in recorded EPAC history. That is at least Mid in my book. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is low. It had no impact and no fatalities, so its not that important is it? Remember what WPTC considers interesting is not the same as everyone else... The record breakingness is covered in the List of articles IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Importance shouldn't have to mean damaging. Importance seems relatively synonymous with notable, and this hurricane was certainly notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It is more important than Irene (of course) but I'm not sure if that qualifies it as Mid-importance, primarily as we are being harsh on the classes. Linda, Ginger, Dog, Faith and so on are less notable than Fabian, Juan, Iris or any other "minor" retiree. I think we should be very restrictive on which notable-for-record storms get higher classes. Perhaps what we could say are the following storms are Mid on non-impact stuff: The most intense and the longest lasting for each basin. Also any exceptional storms in terms of where they were (Catarina, Faith, Vamei or Agni) for example. That means Mid for Linda is OK, but Mid for minor impacts should be a rare occurence. Does that work for you?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That works. I was mostly thinking only Linda, Tip, and John as the low impacts for the Mid-class. Ginger, Dog, Faith, and other ones, now that I think about it, are fine as low class. So 1899 San Ciraco and Wilma would be the only low impacts to get mid or above, but they were very impacting, so no problem there. Faith wasn't even terribly notable. Sure, it lasted further north than any other TC, but that doesn't seem as important as longevity or strength. Catarina and Vamei should be the only other low-impact ones to get mid-class. Agni, though it was closer than any other storm, technically formed further north than Vamei, and I think the lowest latitude forming is more important than the lowest latitude. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I upped this one to Mid. I'm going to wait to confirm Mathbot picked these up and then go on the rampage tomorrow (I've been doing the No-importance articles), if you or anyone else disagrees with me, then comment on the relevant talk page...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until the minor adjustment can be made :

1. Well written? Pass (just one comment)
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

  • Can it be possible to tighten the text in the Impact section into 1 or 2 paragraph as with one liker paragraphs it doesn't look/read too good/easily.

This is a good article thoroughly though the little part for which the comment is addressed to needs extrawork in order to achieve GA status. Good luck, Lincher 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Much better with this in a paragraph instead of lines. Thank you and good luck for the future. Lincher 11:42, 3 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 it passed in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. 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) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)