Talk:Hurricane Lili (1990)

Hurricane Lili (1990) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
February 22, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Todo[edit]

Fix the spelling and grammar errors. The storm history could use better explaination. My biggest problem is with the impact section, namely in Pennsylvania and New England. I find it very odd that the National Hurricane Center report says there were no reports of damage from Lili. It is common knowledge that newspaper sources tend to exaggerate a bit, and given that the NHC report was issued after the newspaper report, I am uncomfortable that two-thirds of the impact section is based on one newspaper source which may or may not be correct. If a more official source can attribute the flooding in Pennsylvania to Lili, that works, but if not, I think perhaps it should be removed until further evidence is provided. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. Harkening back to what I just placed on the Hermine and TC project talk pages, for my purposes, I wouldn't consider the impact on the northern Mid-Atlantic and New England to be direct, and the rain shields from the frontal band and Lili were completely separate, so I don't anticipate including Lili (1990) into the TC rainfall project. Its interaction with Marco is documented here. DeLuca and Vallee didn't include Lili of 1990 as even an indirect impact into their rainfall climatology...yet included Lili of 1996 which was much farther offshore. Canada did not mention rainfall with Lili of 1990 either. I'd suggest digging around the web or the AMS website a bit to see if anyone in the research community has published anything on Lili of 1990, other than its effects on Marco/Klaus. Thegreatdr 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered this brief discussion after rewriting the article, but I believe I've now addressed the issue satisfactorily. Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hurricane Lili (1990)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hurricane Lili (1990)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hurdat":

From Tropical cyclone: NHC Hurricane Research Division (2006-02-17). "Atlantic hurricane best track ("HURDAT")". NOAA. Retrieved 2007-02-22.
From Hurricane Isidore (1990): "Easy to Read HURDAT 2008". National Hurricane Center. 2008. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
From 1990 Atlantic hurricane season: NHC Hurricane Research Division (2006-02-17). "Atlantic hurricane best track". NOAA. Retrieved 2007-04-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Lili (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reviewed this article for GA and find that it fulfills the criteria with no problems. It passes GA. Xtzou (Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Hurricane Lili (1990)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1990 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.