Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane Irene (2005)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Irene (2005)

[edit]
Archived discussion. Current status: {{FA-Class}}

This article has undergone a lot of work since the all-articles decision on 2005AHS. As it stands now its about as complete as possible (for a storm with no impact). Do people think it is higher than B-class? --Nilfanion 19:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It mainly has a lot of storm history. Any article can have that if we tried. I vote no on A class. Sorry Nilfanion. Hurricanehink 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to classify it, thats why I'm bringing it up here. The problem is we don't have a precedent on how to deal with fishspinners. Hink, I agree any article could have a similar history, but its the impact section that typically determines the class. Are we saying that for an article to be better than B-class it must have a substantial impact section, as opposed to a complete one? As there is little more to say about Irene, B-class seems harsh (from the criteria), "GA-class" above seems to match it better.--Nilfanion 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes, a storm has to have a substantial impact section to be above B. B class is nothing to be ashamed. Only 31% of the articles are B class or better. Hurricanehink 21:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is 20 times better than the average GA article, so I've submitted it there. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thats what I think I had in mind when I brought it here, the GA criteria seem possible. A-class seems too demanding. Should that be the WikiProjects target? FA for all that it is possible for, and GA for every storm which doesn't have enough for an FA?--Nilfanion 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FAs don't have to be long. They just need to be comprehensive. So, theoretically, we can get everything to FA status. :)Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See you are contradicting Hink there :) GA would be a good point for all the 'minor' storms to reach; FA is a much slower process; why clog it with Lee and Bret when we should be getting the more important storms there first?--Nilfanion 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is just my own opinion. Theoretically, though, we could give a great storm history and some trivia to every article, and that would make every article an FA? I know that's sort of twisting your words, but it's just a simple example. There has to be more that just storm history for my reason. Nilfanion, having all FA's or GA's should definetly become the goal of the project. It's just a matter of time and effort on all of us. Hurricanehink 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know Hink, its just the sheer scale of the task isnt it - and we are getting more starts added than FAs approved unfortunately.--Nilfanion 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. Hurricanehink 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now GA. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting thought to experiment with the article by sending it to FAC. There's no impact section because there was no impact, but every aspect of the article is complete, so I'm not oppose to sending it there, if we can get it featured. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I found some "impact" info (beach closures, rip currents and the like). I agree it would be an interesting experiment to send it to FAC.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the FAC spot is open, as Mitch was featured. We need another one soon. It would be an interesting experiment, to say the least. It would hopefully give some advice on how to better these non-landfalling storm articles. In addition, it does hold true to FA criteria... I'd support it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's featured now. Well, that was amusing. Let's not do that again for a while, and send a notable article next time. I defended the article more viciously than I would have liked to... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you; though "amusing" is not what springs to mind. We know it is possible for non-notable storms to be featured and the FAC did improve the quality of the article, so it did what we wanted when we submitted it. Should we discuss the other minor storms here to see if they are A-class in light of this?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the <sarcasm> tags around "amusing", but otherwise, I agree with what you said. It might be a good idea to reassess other articles and decide which one to send to FAC next. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane_Irene_(2005)&oldid=1080955886"