Talk:Hurricane Patsy (1959)

Hurricane Patsy (1959) 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
September 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
September 23, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
November 16, 2011	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 28, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 6, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that having reached peak windspeed on September 6, 1959, Hurricane Patsy* is the earliest known Category 5 Pacific hurricane?*
Current status: Delisted good article

Comments

Just a note, I have a gut feeling that the NHC track is NOT valid. The track map shows clearly why - it appears to reflect off the dateline, going through an unnatural >90 degree turn to do so. The explanation is simple. One data point in HURDAT is "*2731787 100 0". However, that is probably 1787E not 1787W. It the true data point should be "*2731813 100 0". That would be an easy error to make and similarly easy to verify (email). On confirmation of HURDAT being incorrect I can fix the track, but obviously not beforehand.--Nilf anion (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Patsy (1959)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the History section, this sentence ---> "The Japan Meteorological Agency's "best track" is missing a period.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be un-linked, per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have delinked the dates and completed the offending sentence. Unless you mistakenly added the sentence "If the following statements can be answered" to the review, in which case I have completed resolving your concerns, you need to tell me what the following statements are so I can finish resolving your concerns. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm talking about the above stuff I left, I guess I should change "following statements" to "above stuff". Anyways, thank you to Miss Madeline for getting the "stuff" I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

It's really, really short.... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The storm did nothing... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a good topic series, which needs it to be complete. Potapych (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's merged due to lack of notability and whatnot, then it wouldn't be a notable gap. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the MH is extremely bad - it doesn't deserve GA status at all. I'm copyediting it at the moment. HurricaneFan 25 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closed as keep. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

≤== Redirect (Revisited)? ==

Why not? I've gotten less splitist over the years. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And there was marginal support above. Yours was the main opposition. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging this as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]