Talk:Tropical Storm Fabian (1991)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 28, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 25, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	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.
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.

	Caribbean Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Assessment

Well this is one storm I didn't expect getting an article. Very nice, Start class for now. For B, add an external links section.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

External links have been added. What's missing for a B? – Chacor 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Close enough. May need some cleaning up, but I doubt there's much more info on this. --Coredesat 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

• Well-written - Weak pass - Parts need to be re-written to flow better. For example, I think it should be mentioned that it became a tropical depression at a certain time before it is mentioned that it became a tropical storm. Also, (though this might be a discussion for elsewhere) should knots be the unit for wind speed? No other Atlantic articles do that. I don't think there should be as many, if any direct references to the NHC discussions. It's about the storm, not about how forecasters handled the storm (though that is important, too). Also, the lede should be expanded a bit.
• Factually accurate - Big pass
• Broad - Big pass
• Non-POV - Pass
• Stable - Pass
• Images - Pass

I'll pass it, but I think what I mentioned needs to be addressed. Good job to those who worked on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 28 December 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) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)