Talk:Tropical Storm Ana (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Ana (2003) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Ana (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 Tropical Storm Ana (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.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Todo

I put this as B because there's unlikely to be much more to say about it, even though the info given is rather short. Todo: references, impact photos, more on impact, references. Jdorje 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at dozens of search engines.Probably not much more for impact.HurricaneCraze32 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Looks good, couple of things, on hold for now, but I'm being nitpicky...

  1. 2nd April subtropical storm in recorded history... could've happened in 1300 but neither of us would know. Actually this is covered later on in the article.
  2. Subsection usage is a bit flaky... I just passed Hurricane Marty (2003) despite some sectioning issues. I think I'd drop the subsections entirely or take it up with WP:TROP as to whether or not "Retirement", "Lack of retirement" should be a section/subsection at all.

—Rob (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair objections. For the first one, I'm not sure what I should do, as it's mentioned later in the article. For number two, that is a very good point. In my opinion, retirement should be part of an aftermath sub-section if it is even retired. Unfortunately, that's how we've been doing it for a while (indicate retired or not somewhere in the article). It's pointless, unless the storm did significant damage or something else with names. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The first one is nitpicky but valid, I've rephrased it. I don't think retirement should appear in any form as a section header, unless the storm was retired, in which case its open for debate. In the case of storms such as this, where it wasn't retired; just a sentence at the end of Impact or Aftermath (like Hurricane Irene (1999)) or incorporating that fact into a larger section on Naming issues (like Tropical Storm Matthew (2004)) seems the best way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is a form of aftermath. Thanks for the quick response! —Rob (talk) 16:52, 21 July 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) 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)