Talk:Hurricane Kate (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hurricane Kate (2003) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Hurricane Kate (2003) is part of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Atlantic  (Rated A-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the storm articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Note icon
The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.


Very stubby. Nothing more than what's already at the seasonal article Probably qualifies for a merge, too. – Chacor 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Irfanfaiz has a nice storm history here. Maybe we could use that storm history. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not doin' it. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be kept, it needs sourcing throughout, and fewer stub sections. Trivia and naming sections are unneeded, though the fact that it was the longest lasting storm in the season (if it is true) could be put in the intro. NHC discussions should be used, emphasizing the difficulties of the storm; first advisory strengthened it to 60 mph in 48 hours, in actuality it was only 40; few forecasts of strengthening to hurricane first time; early forecasts failed to indicate a turn back to the west; restrengthening to reach peak of 125 mph not anticipated while moving westward; etc. Basically, more info in general (impact too). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone, please merge this already. – Chacor 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? A better request would be for someone to expand it already. It doesn't need to be merged, just stuffed. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just finished completely redoing the article. It's more than a stub (probably around B class), and it shouldn't be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Provisionally tagged as start. The intro is a bit long for such a relatively short article... – Chacor 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a problem with having a long intro? What else is needed for B class? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You could provide a link for "tropical wave", "subtropical ridge" and "anticyclone" in the intro. And maybe abbreviating "miles" into "mi". RaNdOm26 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:LEAD re. length of intro. Not much more, are there rainfall images (either HPC or TRMM satellite ones) available? Also, this may just be me, but I think the TCR is over-cited (is there really a need to cite "Kate turned to the north and northeast"?) Also, there is no need to do any such abbrieviation. – Chacor 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I read it. It's two paragraphs, and that's appropriate for this length. There are no rainfall images to my knowledge (checked, unless I missed it). The TCR might be over-cited, but that is where I found that particular information. I believe that every last statement in the body of the article should be sourced. The source before and after that were only discussions, and they didn't mention it turning north and northeast, so I cited the TCR. Anything else for B? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead is 15% of the whole article. I still think that's a bit long. Otherwise, should be a B-class, although there are minor mistakes here and there (I spotted a referencing mistake while calculating the lead, haha). – Chacor 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it really that big of a deal? The lede longer because it is mostly storm history. Look at Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Its lead is 25% of the whole article, yet it's a GA. The article is comprehensive (I doubt whether there's more than 2 useful sentences out there that are not in the article), it's completely sourced down to the smallest detail. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? Might as well change "km" into "kilometre". RaNdOm26 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass

Good and clean written article, appropriate GA size (regarding the comment above) and well described without redundancy. Lincher 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible FAC?[edit]

Okay. We have an A-Class article. Second-highest rating, only behind FA-Class. Hurricane Kate (2003) has already been successfully nominated as a featured topic candidate, and it is also quite the detailed article. Do you think it's time to nominate this article to be featured? Dylan620 Life story 14:00 UTC October 13, 2008

P.S.: When someone has an answer, please leave Template:Talkback on my user talk page. Thank you. Just a few minutes later, same day, same person.

There has been talk about nominating it. If you want to go forward with such an action, you should contact Hurricanehink—the primary contributor to the article—to confirm he believes that it's ready. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That's both a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. While Hurricanehink certainly knows his stuff, and is an expert contributor who would know whether or not this article should be at least nominated as a FAC, it's still a bad idea—Hurricanehink's on a lengthy Wikibreak right now, so it would be a long time before we got a response. Is there anyone else besides him who contributed significantly to the article? Dylan620 Life story 14:35 UTC October 13, 2008

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kate (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)