# Talk:Hurricane Tanya

Not a bad start, but there's nothing else you can do. The storm was, for the most part, a fish storm. Very nice job with the inline references, though a source is needed for the $5 million in damage. However, given how little it did, it should be merged. Sorry, but there's no way there is enough information out there for a storm that did as little as this. Hurricanehink 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was banking on this to get to B Class in one day just like you did with the Hurricane Felix (1995) article, the article you orignally said no in the storm request list. Storm05 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
B class in one day might be a little hard now. Regarding the storm request list, ideas can change, depending on how much information is available and how important the storm was. Personally, I am getting to the point that notability isn't the key factor in an article's existence. If this is an encyclopedia, why not make it a hurricane encyclopedia as well? For this article, though, there's not much information out there. I just did a google search, and there's nothing outside of what is written in here. If you want to have a B class article in one day, it would have to have a lot of information for a fairly important storm. This typically means a landfalling U.S. storm in the last 10 years. That limits it to Jerry (1995), Josephine (which you made before and, retrospectively, should have been kept, hint hint), and Gabrielle (though you made it, it would have to have a lot more info if it were to be recreated). Hurricanehink 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No damage and 1 death...this storm does not deserve an article. — jdorje (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Merged. Hurricanehink 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given more information then Storm05--still cant find a source for the 6.2 million dollars (keeps looking).Dont delete it yet.HurricaneCraze32 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way this article can be kept, in my opinion, is if you find a source for the damage total. Otherwise, the rest of the information could be put in the season summary. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I only put the damage amount in via what Storm05 had-if anything he should find it.HurricaneCraze32 10:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem with copy and pasting. Storm05 made the article without any sources. Now, if you want to remake it, you have to find those sources. You are the one attempting to restart this, not him. You could ask him if he still has it, but it's your job. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but the information currently here doesn't justify an article. I propose a merge, unless more information is found. In addition, parts of the storm history are wrong. Tanya was never subtropical, it only resembled one. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hink here, this article just doesn't work at this time. The most comparable storm from 2005 is the unnamed subtropical storm - affected the Azores, unknown damage and no NHC products with the exception of the TCR Preliminary Report (which should be directly linked to, not through the 1995 archive) and has no article. Until the season article is better this article is not justified - the purpose of storm articles is as a useful supplement to the season, even with the retired storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should stay. Just becasue its short doesn't mean it deserves to be merged. Just give the article a chance. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 12:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason it should be merged is not because it is short. It is because it is poorly written and has no sources! Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep original storm article. The issue with the writing and sources should be addressed here (say with a cleanup tag). Those are not reasons for merging. Wikipedia offers endless examples of main articles and sub articles both existing. There's no reason this can't be done in this case.--Alabamaboy 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was from its original version, and thus out-of-date. That was merged and has since been re-created. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put it up for DYK saying the following:
...that one unfortunate ship had to deal with Hurricane Tanya twice in two different areas of the North Atlantic Ocean five days apart in 1995? CrazyC83 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything better? That is fairly POV, and not terribly notable (one ship moved along much of the track of Hurricane Nicole (1998)). Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you should get an admin to move User:CrazyC83/Tanya95 to Hurricane Tanya (1995) by merging the histories. Otherwise it is a violation of the GFDL. Second, the lede needs sprucing up. "lifespan" should be avoided for non-living things, and its path wasn't that erratic (not even fairly erratic IMO). The storm history isn't the best, either. "It never organized itself until October 25 while south-southeast of Bermuda. However, the Dvorak technique was still unable to classify the system until October 26 as the low-cloud swirl became better organized while moving northward in the central Atlantic." What does the first sentence have to do with the other? While south-southeast of Bermuda, did the convection become better organized, or was it the cloud signature? "That evening, a closed circulation was found, and it was classified as Tropical Depression Twenty-One." For both, by whom? Try and use the active voice as much as possible. "(Operationally, it was not declared a tropical cyclone until that point, when it was immediately declared Tropical Storm Tanya.[2])" Could use some rewording, and you should avoid having sentences in parenthesis. "...as an eye tried to form in the central dense overcast." Did it try, or did it begin to form? Central dense overcast could either use explaination or a Wikilink. "(although small in size)" (get rid of parenthesis). "That afternoon," Typically, when starting a new paragraph, you should give the date again, not refer to the previous date. "However, a cold front to the west forced Tanya to accelerate in a more easterly track on October 30" What does this sentence have to do with Tanya leveling off? "That intensity held up until late on October 31" Held up isn't the best choice of words. "Early on November 1, while still a hurricane, Tanya began to lose tropical characteristics as it tracked rapidly northeast towards the Azores.[9] That morning, it weakened to a tropical storm, although the wind field became larger at the same time" Is there any way to combine the information from the two to make two more chronological sentences? The first and most important paragraph in the impact section needs a reference, badly. Naming and records should probably be merged with impact, seeing as it is a stubby section. All in all, OK start, but it still needs a good bit of work. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redone as suggested. CrazyC83 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Try and fix the spacing in the storm history section. After you get rid of the remaining sentences in parenthesis, it'll probably be B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. CrazyC83 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Was the history merge done? If not, poke me on my talk page. Also, for the record, this is the WikiProject's 800th article. Titoxd(?!?) 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, and upped to B. Titoxd(?!?) 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spell out NOAA in all references
Add the forecasters names to all advisories/the TCR
Add the full dates and dont just use the year
You shouldn't say that Tanya was TD 21 when it was immediately declared as TS Tanya. You can however say it became the 21st tropical depression of the season.
Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Tanya (1995)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Article conforms to WP:NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article appears to be stable.
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): 
Images comply to fair use requirements, with suitable captioning.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria) - I did a quick test with "It was the nineteenth and final named storm and twelfth hurricane of the 1995 season." and neither 19th nor 12th showed up in any sections. Ensure that every point in the lead is covered in the sections.
The article should be written for people who may not be familiar with the subject. Therefore, wikilinks should be re-looked at, so that readers who do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, can click on a link for an explanation. Examples: "hurricane", "National Hurricane Center"
Discussions are normally not WP:RS. In addition, they do not appear to be retrievable. Can you explain why they can/should be acceptable? In addition, some parts are unreferenced.
The so called discussions are written by the forecasters of the NHC every six hours and give all the technical details of the cyclone that aren't put into their public or forecast advisories. Also i think every part is referenced but the way hes done it is put the reference in random places towards the end of the paragraph which i personally dont like as i prefer them at the end of sentences.Jason Rees (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Numbers greater than nine should written numerically. Please refer to MOS:NUM.
The dates in the references are inconsistent, there are both "XXXX-XX-XX" and "X Month XXXX" formats.
Summary: There are some minor issues that can be easily rectified. My main concern has to do with the references, especially when almost all of them come from one primary source. I will provide up to seven days for all these issues to be addressed, before making any further decision.
Final comments: Thank you for all your hard work in making this a better article. I am now satisfied that this article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose merging this article to the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season. It was a weak hurricane that stayed out to sea, and didn't cause much impact. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, the 1995 AHS article is already over 8,000 words. Per WP:SIZERULE, and since Tanya is already a good article, I oppose merging it, since it would make a long article even longer. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  22:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I checked the 1995 AHS and the Tanya portion of the article has sufficient information. It was a minimal storm. Not opposing your idea though. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 01:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Yea, and I feel like there is probably more info out there in Portuguese, considering the Azores were declared a disaster area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)