Talk:Hurricane Nate (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Nate (2005) article.
Article policies
Good article Hurricane Nate (2005) 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.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Todo

More everything. Damage totals, or other impact on Bermuda would be appreciated. Hurricanehink 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Info from the Royal Gazette (Bermuda's np), should be added. That link has some preps info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nate, Maria and the Bergen landslides

It should be added that the remains of storms Nate and Maria eventually reached Scandinavian shores and killed four people in Norway (see Hatlestad Slide).

That would belong with Maria, since that got there first and did most of the impact. I think Nate was absorbed by a distinct system long before reaching there, and that other system stayed farther south. CrazyC83 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NJ Maria death

Should the death caused by Maria and Nate's rip currents be counted as a death in the infobox? I think it should, but both Maria and Nate together caused the one death. Having one on both places would mess up the totals. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nate was much closer than Maria, so I'd call it a Nate-related death. CrazyC83 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but the website with the source says it was from both storms... Hurricanehink (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It was the remains of both storms combined that killed the four people in Norway. http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1114723.ece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safe-Keeper (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Failed Good Article nomination

Reading this article, I found it hard to understand. It doesn't pass the criteria for being well-written as the phrasing is awkward and the terminology isn't explained well. The structure is confusing and it could use quite a bit of clarification. Good luck with that and happy wiki-ing! --Keitei (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination (second one)

I saw this on the list of GA candidates and thought I'd take a look. Overall very good, however a couple of minor things that could be added:

  • Is it possible for any more precise timings to be given in the storm history. For example it says: and became Tropical Storm Nate six hours later. 6 hours later than what?
  • Should the intro mention the one related fatality and the minimal impacts in other places? Currently it says that it passed well to the south of Bermuda, leaving the reader to assume minimal impacts.
  • Can references be added to the last section, Naming and records.
  • but the NHC correctly predicted Nate would survive as a separate system. Although factually accurate it sounded a bit like favoritism or like trying to defend the NHC. Could it be re-worded in a slightly different way? Can't think of a better way at the moment!

Hope these are useful and congrats for a very informative article. - Suicidalhamster 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes - I'm now passing the article. - Suicidalhamster 13:21, 19 November 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) 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)