Talk:Tropical Storm Hermine (2004)

Tropical Storm Hermine (2004) 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
August 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 13, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Todo

Inline sourcing, more impact, and preparations, if possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Hermine (2004)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In most of the article, you call Gaston a hurricane, but in the Impact section you call it a tropical storm. Reason?

This is because in the impact section, the article refers to Gaston as a tropical storm. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Impact section, you go once from inches to mm, and the second time from mm to in. Please make this consistent.

This was also intentional, as with the second instance, the article is giving information about rainfall in Canada, where metric is the standard. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The last two sentences of the "Impact" section needs a ref
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

There are just a couple of items that need addressing, so I am putting this article on hold to allow time for the editors to tweak the article. If you have questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things look good, and I will accept your responses on the two above. I added a ref for the spot that I was concerned about - if you have a different/better ref that you would prefer to use, please feel free to toss mine. I am passing the article now. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didn't even see that point about the reference. In any event, thanks for passing the article! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Although this is a "current land-impacting storm" (which is a bad rule of thumb for articles IMO, but that is a whole different story), there is nothing really notable about this storm. According to the article, Hermine caused less than 1/2 an inch of rain in Cape Cod, and it may not even have done that because of Gaston shortly after. There was basement and street flooding in New Brunswick, but that was from the remnants of Hermine. Thus, there is next to no impact and the MH section can easily be condensed. Therefore, I propose that this article be merged.--12george1 (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I trimmed down the MH. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, it is not a current land-impacting storm if it did no impact as a TC :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the half inch of rain in Cape Cod does technically count. Do you support merging, YE? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, currently doing a word count check. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is 383 words, which is below my normal 450-700 word minimum range. However, this is a GA, not FA, so I think it being GA cancels it out in this case. Unlike other article I've opposed merging, I weakly support merging this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]