Talk:Hurricane Nate (2005)

Hurricane Nate (2005) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 19, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 10, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Caribbean: Bermuda Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bermuda (assessed as Low-importance).

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Todo

More everything. Damage totals, or other impact on Bermuda would be appreciated. Hurricanehink 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info from the Royal Gazette (Bermuda's np), should be added. That link has some preps info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, Maria and the Bergen landslides

It should be added that the remains of storms Nate and Maria eventually reached Scandinavian shores and killed four people in Norway (see Hatlestad Slide).

That would belong with Maria, since that got there first and did most of the impact. I think Nate was absorbed by a distinct system long before reaching there, and that other system stayed farther south. CrazyC83 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Maria death

Should the death caused by Maria and Nate's rip currents be counted as a death in the infobox? I think it should, but both Maria and Nate together caused the one death. Having one on both places would mess up the totals. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nate was much closer than Maria, so I'd call it a Nate-related death. CrazyC83 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the website with the source says it was from both storms... Hurricanehink (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the remains of both storms combined that killed the four people in Norway. http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1114723.ece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safe-Keeper (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Failed Good Article nomination

Reading this article, I found it hard to understand. It doesn't pass the criteria for being well-written as the phrasing is awkward and the terminology isn't explained well. The structure is confusing and it could use quite a bit of clarification. Good luck with that and happy wiki-ing! --Keitei (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination (second one)

I saw this on the list of GA candidates and thought I'd take a look. Overall very good, however a couple of minor things that could be added:

Is it possible for any more precise timings to be given in the storm history. For example it says: and became Tropical Storm Nate six hours later. 6 hours later than what?
Should the intro mention the one related fatality and the minimal impacts in other places? Currently it says that it passed well to the south of Bermuda, leaving the reader to assume minimal impacts.
Can references be added to the last section, Naming and records.
but the NHC correctly predicted Nate would survive as a separate system. Although factually accurate it sounded a bit like favoritism or like trying to defend the NHC. Could it be re-worded in a slightly different way? Can't think of a better way at the moment!

Hope these are useful and congrats for a very informative article. - Suicidalhamster 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes - I'm now passing the article. - Suicidalhamster 13:21, 19 November 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) 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dead links

Nice article, but a lot of the links are dead now. How many people were killed in Norway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.218.88 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More details: article says 1, the article for the weather in Norway says 3, and this talk page says 4. The link to the source is dead, so I can't confirm from there. It's surprising that Wikipedia chose this article as a featured article without noticing this problem. --69.61.218.88 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Preposition Use Although "under" may be used informally when you mean "less than" or "fewer than," consider using "less than" or "fewer than" for a more formal or traditional tone. • Instead of: Please buy under 35 pounds of cherries. • Consider: Please buy less than 35 pounds of cherries. • Instead of: We will hire under 60 employees. • Consider: We will hire fewer than 60 employees. Please fix article a bit--77.28.104.213 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hurricane Nate (2005). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Nate (2005). 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:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YmCuQfOnmmcJ:www.weather.bm/TropicalArchive/WMO_2005_Bermuda.doc+Hurricane+Nate+Bermuda&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20060905102438/http://www.weather.bm/TropicalArchive/WMO_2005_Bermuda.doc on http://www.weather.bm/TropicalArchive/WMO_2005_Bermuda.doc

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) 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]