Talk:Hurricane Nicole (1998)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Nicole (1998) 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

Hurricane Nicole (1998) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
April 5, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 8, 2016	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Assessment

Very good article. Good job with all the details and the very detailed analysis on the storm, considering information can be hard to find. CrazyC83 03:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Assessment

NPOV:Pass
Broadness:Pass
Factually Accurate: Pass
Well written: Pass
Images: 2 is awfully low, but pass
Stability: Easy pass.

Well well. Nice job Hink for a storm i've tried doing.Congrats. Mitch azenia(7900+edits) 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two images is low? Counting the track map, there's three, and that's a good amount. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 26 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) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[1] - Jdcomix (talk · contribs) redirected the article this morning. As the author of the article, I'm fine with this move, but we technically need to have a discussion (as it's part of a good topic). When the article was made, we focused more on individual storms instead of the season articles, so more sub-articles existed when the information would've fit suitably in the season article. As Nicole wasn't that meteorologically extraordinary of a storm, I agree with the move to redirect the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've seen merges without discussions before, and this is actually my first time merging an article. Thanks for letting me know :P Jdcomix (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, it wasn't a very controversial merge, either. Sometimes boldness is a good thing. It gets the ball moving, instead of hiding behind questions for fear of taking a firm action. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]