Talk:Hurricane Danielle (2004)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Danielle (2004) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hurricane Danielle (2004) 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
December 6, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 14, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 December 05. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Todo

The insanity begins... ;) What's needed is inline sourcing, and a little more outside of Storm History. You could do a Forecasting section by using the tropical discussions. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde storms tend to have long storm history sections; see Hurricane Irene (2005) for a similar one (of course this needs a lot of work, I did it from scratch tonight - same with Earl) CrazyC83 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, not a bad job do far. The storm history is good, but it needs more than just that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a seperate forecasting section, that can be interlaced into the rather short history section (on lines of Irene). The intro should be expanded significantly and the non-retirement of the name should be included. And everything should be inline ref'd and {{cite web}}'ed. Pictures too; I'll go hunting for MODIS when I get the chance.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Irene had at least Impact and naming. Danielle didn't have anything outside of impact, so a forecasting section, while a little redundant, could provide something else. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend you find a way to expand the article outside of the storm history. Perhaps you could mention in the impact section that it was initially predicted to move through the Azores, which would've made Danielle the first storm since Tanya in 95 to pass through the archipelago as a tropical cyclone. However, it remained far from the islands. I doubt it if there is, but did you check if there's any stuff from the Cape Verde islands or possibly western Africa (as a tropical wave)? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

1. It is well written. - yes
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. -yes
3. It is broad in its coverage. - covers full event
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. - yes
5. It is stable - yes
6. It contains images, where possible... - yes

Comments: The citions should probably use {{Cite web}}, and dates such as August 16 shouldn't be linked. The article covers what happened with the storm, how did the predictions fair for it? Were any areas evacuated? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Basically a storm that caused no impacts, and nothing special about MH. Not really notable. --219.79.126.130 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, mundane Cape Verde hurricane with minimal land impacts, and a storm that would not be given an article with today's standards. But please wait for more input before taking any action. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I came here to propose merging the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose - First, the normal practice for initiating a merger discussion has not been followed. Second, the article includes plenty of reliable and independent sources discussing the subject in detail as per our notability guideline, and therefore. merits a stand-alone article of its own. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While most of the tropical cyclones are notable, what matters the most are impacts, not trivial records. Impacts (and with some noteworthy records) generally decide whether or not a tropical cyclone deserves an article. Mario Jump 83! 10:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

Why is this even an article. Danielle had no impacts on land or ships, and was not a major meteorological oddity. This should have been merged in 2020 when this first came up.DachshundLover82 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per TropicalAnalystwx13 and Hurricanehink. Mario Jump 83! 10:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has the merge moratorium expired yet? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat, it's expired since February 23. Mario Jump 83! 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Then, merge. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Run-of-the-mill fishspinning TC... Noah^Talk 11:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]