Talk:Tropical Storm Franklin (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Franklin (2005) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Franklin (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] History

for future reference: this edit has some details removed from 2005AHS. --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The picture is pretty bad. Here's a better one: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/h2005_franklin.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.236.216 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Todo

Impact section would be greatly appreciated. Exact totals on wind gusts is one possibility, as is any rainfall totals. Overall, though, this is close to B class. Hurricanehink 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Added strength of wind gusts on Bermuda. Nilfanion 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

More impact info will probably have to wait, but when the 2006 WMO report comes out, I strongly suspect Bermuda will give some useful stuff for us then. Having looked at the discussions in more detail, I think I'm going to make a user subpage for these quotes. I mean Franklin advisory 8 (by Franklin) ends "IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT LITTLE OR NOTHING WILL BE LEFT OF FRANKLIN...THE STORM...NOT THE FORECASTER...IN 2-3 DAYS".--Nilfanion 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit more impact info (for Bermuda at least) should become available when the WMO release their report. Does the preparations section stand up on its own like this or should it be merged into another section? Btw, Dr. Franklin loved his namesake, read discussion 8. --Nilfanion 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro is bad, as the second paragraph adds almost nothing. I know I said the intros even of weak storms should be at least two short paragraphs long...but repeating the same information in both paragraphs isn't good. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Also, the sections are too short - maybe preparations should be merged with impact, as is done with Lee. Having 3 consecutive one-short-paragraph sections is not good. — jdorje (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the preparations into the Impact section, and restructured the introduction. It is more similar to Lee's now; the repetition is gone which is good. I think the current intro contains all this one should have in it really, I'm not convinced if these minor storms, without any real impact, can really justify two paragraph intros.--Nilfanion 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Why isn't the name of the article "Tropical Storm Franklin", instead of "Tropical Storm Franklin (2005)", because it's the only tropical storm named Franklin? - Halibut Thyme, 06:4pm (Eastern Time), 3 August 2006

That's because there will likely be Franklins in the future (2011), and Franklin wasn't retired. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article!

Great job folks. Looks really nice. Thorough, nice photos, well-referenced, reads well, tied in nicely with other projects and articles. This WikiProject in general makes consistently well-done artiles. Great job!--Esprit15d 13:30, 3 August 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) 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)