This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
I think that's why it's not up for GAN/GAC/good article nominations quite yet.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
No, I don't see a need for a season summary, given the season is summarized in the lede. Splitting off a season summary would be redundant. I just wanted to give it a day after I published it. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
It does make sense for the season summary to be the lead instead of another subsection. I ran into this problem when submitting my first season article GA (
1981 Atlantic hurricane season) within the past month. Why should the season summary be repeated multiple times within the same article?
Thegreatdr (
talk)
Completely agreed. If there was enough activity, or the season had some records, than a season summary section would be warranted. Otherwise, I don't see too much of a need to have a separate season summary. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The project page has been updated for the production of season articles, with the text "preferably in the lead" added.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Overall a decent article. However, it's not in any category. The prose is quite rough; I stopped after the lead, and I suggest a thorough copyedit of the article. For example: "Five tropical cyclones were reported during the season, the earliest of which was first observed on August 19 and the latest of which dissipated on October 11. These dates fall within the range of most Atlantic tropical cyclone activity." After discussing the dates, you add a short, abrupt sentence about the normal range of hurricane activity. The next sentence, " None of the cyclones existed simultaneously with another." is quite rough. Can you smooth out the sentence? Just to remind again—these are only examples; the entire article needs copyediting. Maxim(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories added. Hurricanehink and I copyedited the article somewhat, so it should be good enough to pass now.
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
I think that's why it's not up for GAN/GAC/good article nominations quite yet.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
No, I don't see a need for a season summary, given the season is summarized in the lede. Splitting off a season summary would be redundant. I just wanted to give it a day after I published it. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
It does make sense for the season summary to be the lead instead of another subsection. I ran into this problem when submitting my first season article GA (
1981 Atlantic hurricane season) within the past month. Why should the season summary be repeated multiple times within the same article?
Thegreatdr (
talk)
Completely agreed. If there was enough activity, or the season had some records, than a season summary section would be warranted. Otherwise, I don't see too much of a need to have a separate season summary. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The project page has been updated for the production of season articles, with the text "preferably in the lead" added.
Thegreatdr (
talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Overall a decent article. However, it's not in any category. The prose is quite rough; I stopped after the lead, and I suggest a thorough copyedit of the article. For example: "Five tropical cyclones were reported during the season, the earliest of which was first observed on August 19 and the latest of which dissipated on October 11. These dates fall within the range of most Atlantic tropical cyclone activity." After discussing the dates, you add a short, abrupt sentence about the normal range of hurricane activity. The next sentence, " None of the cyclones existed simultaneously with another." is quite rough. Can you smooth out the sentence? Just to remind again—these are only examples; the entire article needs copyediting. Maxim(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories added. Hurricanehink and I copyedited the article somewhat, so it should be good enough to pass now.
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!