Talk:Hurricane Hernan (2008)

Hurricane Hernan (2008) 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
October 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 18, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 8, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 20, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for merging with 2008 Pacific hurricane season on 22:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC). The result of the discussion (permanent link) was merged.

Formation of article

Created Hernan link.--Marmon55 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Hernan_07_August_2008.jpg/120px-Hernan_07_August_2008.jpg Add image

merge

it NEEDS an article now. its a Major hurricane and it will have one by tomorrow, possibly under the name Hurricane Hernan72.193.254.254 (talk)

I really do No need for such a stubby article on a storm that never touched land. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge badly. It's short, and it's pointless. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge Hold out on the merge for now. I'm currently working on rewriting the whole article. Wait until I've finished, then see if it still needs to be merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Fine with no merge for now. Don't forget to use TWO's and TWD's (both on here). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move the article to a user sub page for now. I'm tired and I don't want to do a sloppy job on it. Sorry for delaying it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No MergeIt has not been edited since Labor Day, butI think we should all help Cyclonebiskit do the job.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for an article on Hernan. It didn't affect any land, it didn't set any records, and overall there wasn't much of anything special about it. However, if you are interested in article writing, there are plenty of older storms that either have articles and need work, or caused some impact on land but do not have an article. Or, if you want to focus on Hernan, you could always work on the section in the season article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC) This article dose not need to be merged if you look and the to do section of this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.254.254 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such a stubby article on a storm that never touched land. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge badly. It's short, and it's pointless. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge Hold out on the merge for now. I'm currently working on rewriting the whole article. Wait until I've finished, then see if it still needs to be merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Fine with no merge for now. Don't forget to use TWO's and TWD's (both on here). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move the article to a user sub page for now. I'm tired and I don't want to do a sloppy job on it. Sorry for delaying it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No MergeIt has not been edited since Labor Day, butI think we should all help Cyclonebiskit do the job.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article early

Although I understand that this storm can have an article even though it never affect land, the creation of it should have been held off until the TCR for it came out. The TCR would make it much easier to create an accurate and useful article for a storm that didn't affect land. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boris TCR is not even out so I would not count on it, however its says on my talk that it needs an article now so i would rename it Hurricane Hernan(2008) when its finished and yes i am also editing it from time to time.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the storm doesn't determine how long the TCR takes to come out. Stronger/long lived/landfalling storms take longer than weaker/short lived/non-landfalling storms. It also depends on the activity of the season, the more active, the less time they have to write them up. Also this page is now under my user page, for the time being do not update this page or revert my edits. It takes time to make an article that is useful to be put out in the main space. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an near to above normal season but the above normal season of 2006 had a lot of TCR come out early, but Boris TCR is not out.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the atlantic was quiet, they had the extra time to write them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MM, I would say the average number of TCR is 28.However The TCR of 2005 came out mostly in April and they had over 50 reports to wrie, Some extremely long ones like Katrina. So, I think the Hernan TCR wont be out until December.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (again)?

This article is horribly written, lacks citations, and is unneeded. I'm going to be bold and merge unless there are any objections. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undid merge,there is objection.--Yellow Evan (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your undoing. No offense, but the article is bordering terrible, and there is no need for an article of that quality on a non-notable storm. Also, I see nowhere Cyclonebiskit objecting, so may I ask if you're lying to further your opinion? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this, there's no reason for the article other than personal interest, and I agree with JC, this article is horribly written. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more merge is my guess now, I'm almost done with the Meteorological history section, which was significantly expanded, and the intro paragraph will be updated shortly after and then the article should be complete (well, reasonably at least). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Do you want to add anything about naming to the impact section? That seems to be the default way to expand such short articles (eg. Tropical Storm Lee (2005), Tropical Storm Erick (2007)). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really add anything about the naming until the TCR comes out. Also, the article is finally done. It's taken a lot of procrastination, aggravation, and time to get it done but it's there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. And no, you don't need the TCR about the naming. We already know what previous storms were named Hernan. For citing purposes, you could use the EPAC best track. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added that it was the fifth time a tropical storm was named Hernan in the EPac. Anything else I should add? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally add the years, since the 1996 and 2002 ones have articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the first paragraph in the SH needs sources. You could wait for the TCR to provide an early history (but that would mean you couldn't GA nom it in the meantime), or you could use the ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Outlook-P TWO's] and TWD's. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how should I add the other uses into the article? Also, my computer can't open the discussions so if it's not a problem, can you add it in for me? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like, "Hurricane Hernan was used previously in 1984, 1990, 1996, and 2002." Have you tried opening the TWD's and TWO's in Internet Explorer? They don't work for me on Firefox, but they always work on IE. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try, thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've expanded the pre-depression section and added links to the 1996 and 2002 uses. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit

Yellow Evan, please do not edit this article, this is going to sound rude, but you can't write well at all. Most of your edits are poorly written and contain bad grammar. Unless you can learn how to write properly, don't make edits on wikipedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..... Cyclone.... you can't stop someone editing.... and too be honest its a personal attack....... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, and it would indeed help the article, but I agree that such commands should be avoided. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got a little too frustrated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itfc - I can try though =) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movement

The Meteorological history makes little or no mention of the storm's movement. The track map shows a small loop in its formative stages, and this should be described in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the splitting MH a new thing or just because it's long? I have to switch to my desktop to put more info on the formative stage but since I'm almost done with the Elida article, I'm going to do it later. I think I forgot to put the movement in that article too. Thanks for telling this now so I could catch it with the Elida article before it's put out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the switching part...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split. The MH is too lone also do that with Ioke and Elida

Yellow Evan, like I've said in the Elida talk page, I'd much rather prefer someone who has a good editing history than someone who has been extensively ridiculed to comment on this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hernan (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I see a problem thats it is not stable. Should we but it on hold? --please note that this unsigned comment was left by Yellow Evan. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment above, I see no evidence at present that the article is not stable. Looking at the talk page, there was definitely some disagreement, but this has died down. I would caution editors against telling another editor not to edit a certain article, as this can come off as uncivil and declaring ownership of the article.

With that said, the article looks pretty good. As I read the article, I noticed the following:

"As Hernan moved over cold waters, the convection associated with the storm dissipated and Hernan." I believe that the sentence is missing its final word.
Could "remnant low" be wikilinked in the lead, and preferably written so that more people can understand: a remnant low-pressure area, or something like that.
What makes a "major hurricane"? Is Hernan really the only major hurricane this season?
It would be nice if "eyewall" was briefly explained (or, since it's explained in the lead section of Eye (cyclone), maybe just wikilinked).
Consistency is needed: "eye wall" vs. "eyewall".

I will place the review on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any comments or questions can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry about my remarks towards Yellow Evan, they were uncalled for despite my being frustrated. Now that that's aside on my part, I'll go in the same order you did with the recommendations/errors

I've added "weakened to a tropical depression" at the end of that sentence
Remnant low has been changed to remnant low-pressure area and wikilinked in the lead
I used "ndash" to give a general summary of a major hurricane in the lead, a storm with winds of 111 mph (178 km/h) or higher.
I found that eye was already wikilinked, or do you want me to include it in the intro?
Working on eye wall and eyewall now

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find "eye wall" anywhere in the article. Did you mean explain it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "eye wall" to "eyewall" for consistency. My concern is that "eye" is linked in the article, but "eyewall" isn't. This article is the first time I've come across the term "eyewall", so I was unsure of what it meant. There's no separate article for "eyewall", but wikilinking it to Eye (cyclone) the first time it's used (in the second sentence of the "Demise" section) would help the reader find the meaning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the subsections have been removed for consistency with other similar articles. The sentence I was referring to above is, "However, the eyewall remained intact throughout the night." GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, I've linked it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article again, and everything seems good. I can follow it easily, and I believe that it meets all six criteria for a GA. I am promoting the article. If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review a nomination in return to help with the backlog. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

If the nomination was stopped because the nominator (in this case Yellow Evan) was blocked, then what if I nominated Hernan for FA? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Cyclonebiskit, the second main editor for Hernan

...Second main editor? I gathered that you created the article, but basically none of your work is in the article. If you feel that the article is ready for FAC, just tell me, I'll nominate it because if someone else nominates it, I can't really support it since I did the work for it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I help you a little and i am the leading contributer to Hernan by dubble.

Do you mean by edit count or actual contributions? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts usually don't mean much, other than how many edits you've made. Save the first two paragraphs of the Storm history, [1] that was your last major role in the article. Compare that old edit, to now. Most of the work in the current version was done by me, save the copy edits and minor changes by GaryColemanFan, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink, and Pasticup. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, when i added an image it was. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By major role, I mean text contributions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected for three days

Because every edit in the last 24 hours seems to be a revert, I have protected this article for three days. Please discuss how to properly avoid this type of editing among yourselves so that this does not occur when protection expires, Metros (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I know this was the article that I campaigned to be kept two years ago, but should this article be merged? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I don't think it's a high priority. Given that it was a major hurricane, it has some claim to notability. For now, I'm indifferent. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I just want to seek other editors opinions. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I know TAWX has been working on 2008 PHS lately so might as well merge this now before he GANs it sometime in the future. Good news is this (along with Fausto 08) is the last EPAC article from the era where we gave articles for every storm that really should be merged. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (2008) → Meteorological history of Hurricane Hernan (2008) – To be brief, this article seems a lot like a MH article... HF 25 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane[reply]

I'm with YE. I tried the same for Hurricane Epsilon, but I'll admit it didn't work. There's no need for the extra length in the article title. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge? (FOR SERIOUS)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merged. It's already over a week and this should have been merged by this point before the moratorium discussion had started. Per WP:MERGE, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Since I want to expand 2008 PHS by this point and eventually get the season article to GA, I will go for it now. While the discussion is not unanimous, I'm going WP:IAR. SMB9 9thx my edits 07:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly only MH and impacts on Hawaii is so minimal that there's no separate section for it! And, 2008 PHS article is not a GA so merging could help. SMB9 9thx my edits 22:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Nothing but MH in there. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing else about it but being a major hurricane Cyclonetracker (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing close to Hector. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a consensus for merging. SMB9 9thx my edits 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this if no discussion by the end of the week. In this case, I stand by my comments from a few years back. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WT:WPTC#Merge discussions getting out of hand: moratorium proposal. I think we should step away from merges for 3-5 months, and focus on creating. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a GA, although merging can bring 2008 pacific to GA status. But 90% of my oppose is based on this. --HurricaneTracker495 School Chromebook (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually given the events of the overnight hours, think it's best we hold off here. Ditto with Fausto 08 really. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There were no notable impacts from this storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything that needs to be there can go into the article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (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.