Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean 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.
August 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
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.

[edit] Too soon?

It's too soon to start turning Hurricane Dean (2007) into a series; as it hasn't even dissipated yet, and we don't know how significant a storm it will be in areas it has yet to affect. I recommend merging this. --Coredesat 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. The storm history hasn't been spectacular so far, and it could be easily contained within the main article. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I felt that the main article was getting a little unwieldy. When it was over 62 kb (and growing) I thought that, whether the name is retired or not, the article ought to be divided up to make it more readable as per the WP:Article size recommendation. Splitting out the meteorological history seemed like one of the most logical steps to take. If you would rather not link here from Hurricane Dean (2007) then by all means remove the link, but please don't delete this page. Just move it back to my sandbox so that I can continue to work on it - for my personal edification if nothing more. Plasticup T/C 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't that bad. 62 kb for a current article is not a problem, and the storm history is only a few kb of that. Katrina was well over 100 kb, and that was even with several sub-articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

  1. Broadness: Pass
  2. Fact.Accuracy: Pass
  3. Neutral POV:Pass
  4. Images: Pass
  5. Well written: Pass
  6. Stable: Extreme Pass

Well done job, Plasticup and all other users who worked on it. Passed.Mitchcontribs 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)