This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2023. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well this is one storm I didn't expect getting an article. Very nice, Start class for now. For B, add an external links section. Mitch azenia (8300+edits) 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll pass it, but I think what I mentioned needs to be addressed. Good job to those who worked on it. Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I'm looking at this article as part of my redoing 1991 AHS, and I notice it's sort of lackluster. There isn't a single mention of impact, outside of random rainfall/wind/pressure reports (AKA anything other than met. details). Even Google confirms the storm didn't do much of anything, describing it "wet and puny" ( don't even say it). IDK what to do about it. It's not really worthy of GA status, and yet I don't think there's enough real content for it to become/remain a GA. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Before this turns into an anti-mergist rant, I am asking, how can we turn this article (which is currently rather lackluster) into something that can benefit the encyclopedia? Right now, I feel there is a lot of fluff. For example:
That is merely indicating something didn't happen. Since when was encyclopediac information including stuff that did not happen? Similarly, there are mentions to the barometric pressure in Cuba. In my opinion, that is fairly useless, since it is just... there. There is no context. In my opinion, if someone saw that "the Isle of Youth reported a barometric pressure of 1004.9 millibars", I wouldn't blame them if they were confused why that piece of info was there. In addition, the article goes into large detail about rainfall amounts, but it doesn't say anything beyond that (what did the rainfall do). I believe the article currently fails in adequately explaining what the storm did and its context in history. So it was a tropical storm. There are lots of unnamed/unclassified storms that do more. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article should be merged. The impact section basically states "it produced xxx inches of rain here and xxx there". There isn't any real damage. HF 25 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This GA is being merged to another article per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Fabian (1991), so it clearly needs to be delisted. Since this is obviously uncontroversial, I'm going to IAR the notification and seven-day-wait requirements from WP:GAR and just delist immediately; if anyone really feels that full discussion is necessary, let me know. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2023. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well this is one storm I didn't expect getting an article. Very nice, Start class for now. For B, add an external links section. Mitch azenia (8300+edits) 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll pass it, but I think what I mentioned needs to be addressed. Good job to those who worked on it. Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I'm looking at this article as part of my redoing 1991 AHS, and I notice it's sort of lackluster. There isn't a single mention of impact, outside of random rainfall/wind/pressure reports (AKA anything other than met. details). Even Google confirms the storm didn't do much of anything, describing it "wet and puny" ( don't even say it). IDK what to do about it. It's not really worthy of GA status, and yet I don't think there's enough real content for it to become/remain a GA. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Before this turns into an anti-mergist rant, I am asking, how can we turn this article (which is currently rather lackluster) into something that can benefit the encyclopedia? Right now, I feel there is a lot of fluff. For example:
That is merely indicating something didn't happen. Since when was encyclopediac information including stuff that did not happen? Similarly, there are mentions to the barometric pressure in Cuba. In my opinion, that is fairly useless, since it is just... there. There is no context. In my opinion, if someone saw that "the Isle of Youth reported a barometric pressure of 1004.9 millibars", I wouldn't blame them if they were confused why that piece of info was there. In addition, the article goes into large detail about rainfall amounts, but it doesn't say anything beyond that (what did the rainfall do). I believe the article currently fails in adequately explaining what the storm did and its context in history. So it was a tropical storm. There are lots of unnamed/unclassified storms that do more. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article should be merged. The impact section basically states "it produced xxx inches of rain here and xxx there". There isn't any real damage. HF 25 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This GA is being merged to another article per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Fabian (1991), so it clearly needs to be delisted. Since this is obviously uncontroversial, I'm going to IAR the notification and seven-day-wait requirements from WP:GAR and just delist immediately; if anyone really feels that full discussion is necessary, let me know. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)