Talk:Hurricane Michelle

Hurricane Michelle was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Todo

I marked it as stub because it has not a single source. However even aside from that it needs some work. I don't like the chronological structure; I'd rather see it split back into Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath sections. Also the intro needs to be expanded. Overall the content is good so the issues are mostly technical. Jdorje 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Hurricanehink 16:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It could be B-class at this point but I'd like to see more sources first. Also the impact section could use a summary: maybe in the retirement subsection. Jdorje 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the sources were from those two links. That second link has a lot of news headlines, though. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure what should be done with the references then. Maybe separate entries are needed each time a bit of data comes from one of them. Jdorje 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Storm History needs to be rewritten. It's filled with typos and broken sentences, and it's not very in-depth compared to other storms of this magnitude. 71.7.210.87 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. Juliancolton (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Jamaica landslides

Pictures

I know you're going to ask for some, so here's a page with tons of them. Am I allowed to use them, because there is no copyright status? Hurricanehink 14:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction:

Did the storm hit cuba with 135mph or 140mph winds? Jdorje 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both, actually. At Cayo Largo, an island south of the main part of Cuba, it was 140 mph, while mainland Cuba was 135 mph. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the chronology is a bit confused. The article ought to give one story from start to finish, listing places hit and winds attained in order. As it is the article has the hurricane crossing Cuba, then Nicaragua; then it tells us it crossed Cuba, then headed off to the Bahamas, then departed from Cuba... it's confused. Good, but needs a bit of organizing Friendly Person (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed

This article failed because it doesn't seem to cover all aspects of the topic and it has a few stubby sub-sections. A few suggestions would be to add a preperation section detailing how people of the affected area prepared and even possibly an aftermath section would go along nicely in the article. Tarret 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (many spelling and grammar errors) (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): (several section too short, such as preparations, Cayman Islands, Florida) b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views): (aftermath in Central America? Any sources from Cuba for its aftermath?)
It is stable.
(no edits wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

It is missing metric conversions
It is missing non-breaking spaces
Wikilinking is poor
The article says people were missing, but this is 6 years later. Surely there is an updated death toll, or at least say if those missing were found. The source was only two months after the event.

--Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? Juliancolton (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. The article is far from being considered "good". --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What more does it need, exactly? Juliancolton (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some necessary details in my GA review. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I can't find any spelling errors. Juliancolton (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just spelling errors. The overall writing is poor, and I provided several examples of what could be done. FWIW, the typos are strenghened, strenght, strenghened, untill, strenght, Michelles, and aroundon. Please take time and learn to copyedit yourself before bothering others when the article is clearly not good. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia have a spell check? Juliancolton (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, but if you download the newest version of Firefox, it has a spell checker included, which highlights any incorrectly spelled words. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Michelle. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923101618/http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312215337/http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm to http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CV1scaM6?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoml.noaa.gov%2Fhrd%2FLandsea%2FNHR-Cuba.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Michelle. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needed for GAN

The impacts for Caymans and Cuba are on the light side. I'm not sure if the GAN should be withdrawn, but I'm sure there's more info for both areas. Also, the aftermath is pretty light. Florida shouldn't have more than both of those areas (and not saying that Florida should be shortened, just that the other sections should be expanded). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to find these soon. SMB9 9thx my edits 22:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That should be found before you nominated it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll removed the tag for now. Once I found anything for Caymans, Cuba and the aftermath, I'll re-add the GAN tag and start the GA review. SMB9 9thx my edits! 05:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]