Jump to content

Talk:Project Stormfury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleProject Stormfury 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 13, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 16, 2014, September 16, 2019, and September 16, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Name

[edit]

In many of the technical sources, Project Stormfury is often referred to as "Project STORMFURY"; that is, with the "Stormfury" in all capital letters. So, should we rename this to Project STORMFURY and change every mention of Stormfury to STORMFURY?--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Madeline (talkcontribs)

No, I don't think so; though a redirect from the all-caps to here makes sense. From what I've seen of military operations the name tends to be capitalized Operation OVERLORD for example, though the common usage is "Operation Overlord" (both in general and on Wikipedia), and pick any other military operation you likely find a similar story. This seems to be the same thing, so lets follow the same logic and have a redirect from the All-caps to here.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA granted

[edit]

Well descriptive and easy to follow. More information about the reception of the project SF would add to the article. Lincher 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]