Talk:Hurricane Lenny

Todo

Impact. Jdorje 09:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Better? Now we need pictures. Too tired now, but found a government site located here with some Lenny impact pics. Hurricanehink 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyediting. The article is quite good, the only thing that's really missing is more pictures, and inline sources. Jdorje 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you think the article is good :) Pictures are a real pain to find them ending in .gov. I did find a Tripod website that has no copyright status whose images would go nicely on here. Located here, it features images on St. Croix. Are they usable, as there is no copyright symbol anywhere on any of the images or the main page? Hurricanehink 14:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's no copyright symbol you can assume they are copyrighted. They might still be usable under fair use but that's inferior since each usage has to be justified. Jdorje 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, how much more to B class? Hurricanehink 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's surely B-class. I dunno if it's A-class though. — jdorje (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not an A class, though I thought it was a B. Hurricanehink 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has passed

Congratulations! The Good article nomination for Hurricane Lenny has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article. This article is a little bit on the short side. If it is at all possible, I suggest adding more text and possibly removing one of the destruction images if there is no more text to add. Right now it seems that the images take up more space than the text does. --SomeStranger^(t) 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

GA delisting

I have delisted this article from GA status. It still lacks a lot of information. I've managed to find three articles on Lenny from the BBC News archives which contain information not presented here. I'd not be surprised if there was more. Preparations needs a lot more work. – Chacor 09:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the delisting, but how is it not B class? It provides a good summary of the storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Article is incomplete.
2. Cite web formatting.

If the article can be saved and more information added (there is a lot out there, really, just look around), and references changed to our preferred cite.php, then yes it'd be B. – Chacor 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

...And? Sure, there can be more information added, but the same goes for Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Jeanne, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Juan, and Hurricane Andrew, but they're all B or above. Not all of them have cite web formatting, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of the stub sections here first, and I'll be glad to up to B. As it stands right now an important part of any TC article which had impact, which is preparations, is a stub section. – Chacor 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll agree with you on the start. It needs a good bit more info, and being at start will mean people will recognize that it needs a good bit more work. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Lenny/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, good job on expanding the article! I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. Auree ★ 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference 44 contains a dead link. Moreover, I question the reliability of the website Australian Severe Weather as a source, which has been used as such on at least one other occasion in the article (reference 43). I think it's best to remove both of these entirely and possibly find more reliable sources as replacements.

   Ref 44 opens fine for me. I used that source because it contained useful information. Although I realize GP cited ReliefWeb, I could not find where he got the info. However, GP sources have been used for FA's, seeing as he has also been cited by the NOAA, so the source has been determined to be reliable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   But I wasn't even talking about GP being reliable or not; I was talking about Australian Severe Weather. It looks like a forum/blog-esque site to me. Auree ★ 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   Ooh, I gotcha. Yea, the AUS Severe Weather just has a reproduction of GP's summary. Several sites have it, and that is the one I typically use. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is probably the best quality the article has to offer. Excellent coverage!

One minor quibble though: Should it mention why the WMO retired Lenny? I'm not quite sure readers will understand why it was retired, or even what retirement is without the elaboration. I also think there's a wikilink for tropical cyclone name retirement, though I'm not too sure.

I didn't want to do too much original research, but adding "due to the damage" stuff I think should be sufficient. As for what retirement is, I think it's clear enough with "will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane". That's all retirement. I added the link. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I really like the images

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pass since it meets all of the criteria appreciably, aside from one that reference being a tad ambiguous qua reliability. I won't hold up the review because of it, since it's only one source for a very short sentence and the article would easily pass without it. Good work! Auree ★ 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)