Talk:Tropical Storm Franklin (2005)

Tropical Storm Franklin (2005) 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
July 3, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 14, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for merging with 2005 Atlantic hurricane season on February 4, 2020. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

History

for future reference: this edit has some details removed from 2005AHS. --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture is pretty bad. Here's a better one: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/h2005_franklin.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.236.216 (talk • contribs)

Todo

Impact section would be greatly appreciated. Exact totals on wind gusts is one possibility, as is any rainfall totals. Overall, though, this is close to B class. Hurricanehink 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added strength of wind gusts on Bermuda. Nilfanion 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More impact info will probably have to wait, but when the 2006 WMO report comes out, I strongly suspect Bermuda will give some useful stuff for us then. Having looked at the discussions in more detail, I think I'm going to make a user subpage for these quotes. I mean Franklin advisory 8 (by Franklin) ends "IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT LITTLE OR NOTHING WILL BE LEFT OF FRANKLIN...THE STORM...NOT THE FORECASTER...IN 2-3 DAYS".--Nilfanion 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more impact info (for Bermuda at least) should become available when the WMO release their report. Does the preparations section stand up on its own like this or should it be merged into another section? Btw, Dr. Franklin loved his namesake, read discussion 8. --Nilfanion 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is bad, as the second paragraph adds almost nothing. I know I said the intros even of weak storms should be at least two short paragraphs long...but repeating the same information in both paragraphs isn't good. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Also, the sections are too short - maybe preparations should be merged with impact, as is done with Lee. Having 3 consecutive one-short-paragraph sections is not good. — jdorje (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the preparations into the Impact section, and restructured the introduction. It is more similar to Lee's now; the repetition is gone which is good. I think the current intro contains all this one should have in it really, I'm not convinced if these minor storms, without any real impact, can really justify two paragraph intros.--Nilfanion 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why isn't the name of the article "Tropical Storm Franklin", instead of "Tropical Storm Franklin (2005)", because it's the only tropical storm named Franklin? - Halibut Thyme, 06:4pm (Eastern Time), 3 August 2006

That's because there will likely be Franklins in the future (2011), and Franklin wasn't retired. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article!

Great job folks. Looks really nice. Thorough, nice photos, well-referenced, reads well, tied in nicely with other projects and articles. This WikiProject in general makes consistently well-done artiles. Great job!--Esprit15d 13:30, 3 August 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) 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tropical Storm Franklin (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061002063438/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20050730143826.Franklin.txt.en to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20050730143826.Franklin.txt.en

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} 06:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]