Talk:Tropical Storm Harvey (2005)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Harvey (2005) 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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 29, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 29, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

For future reference: more details than currently in 2005AHS are at this edit. --AySz88^-^ 04:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

I put it at start class, but it could be enough for B class. More anything is needed, especially impact. Rainfall totals would be nice... very nice. Hurricanehink 13:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added rainfall total at the airport (TCR source). Nilfanion 14:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with Franklin, the WMO report will probably allow expansion of the impact section.--Nilfanion 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA issues

Some issues relating to this article's GA nomination:

The article is in need of some copyediting. Punctuation, in particular, is an issue. But sentences like Tropical Storm Harvey formed out from a tropical wave to the southwest of Bermuda on August 2 and passed close to Bermuda on August 4, bring heavy rain to the island don't look good either. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more advice.
Per WP:DATE, partial dates (just a year or just a day) should generally not be linked unless in doing so, context is added to the article. It seems every instance of a day or year (not counting full dates) is linked. It is this editor's opinion that they should not be, but this is not a hard rule.
The lead says that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was busy - how so?
Using the phrase "Tropical Storm Harvey" so many times makes the prose seem stilted. Try to mix it up with appropriate substitutes (Harvey, the storm, etc.).

Other reviewers may want to add to this, but the above list is all I have for now. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a copyedit and have addressed these issues, reducing the use of TS Harvey, clarifying the season was a record-breaker and addressing the copyedit stuff. However the dates were correct beforehand, if it contains a month and a day, August 7 for example, it should be wikilinked to allow users date preferences to work.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed, as the needed requirements were met and the concerns were addressed. Lincher 23:50, 9 July 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 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) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting

I am going to delist this article as a GA because it clearly no longer meets that criteria. There is only 3 references (none of which are non-NHC/NOAA) and the lede and MH are on the short-side. Additionally, it looks like a merge-candidate. Therefore, I am going to delist and merge this article (based on consensus on our IRC channel).--12george1 (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]