# Talk:Tropical Storm Beryl (2000)

Looks good, though more Mexican impact would be nice. Have you tried Spanish sources? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did! I have found this one while looking at Mexican hurricanes in Wikipedia. However, I have no understanding of Spanish other than counting from 1 to 10. :/ RaNdOm26 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, can you read Spanish? RaNdOm26 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, actually. It says Beryl caused $254,000 (2000 MXN pesos). That's pretty much all that is there, though. This site says someone issued a disaster declaration, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Somebody else will have to look at those links if the info can be used in the article. I used the Google translator, and the text didn't make any sense. RaNdOm26 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, what I wrote was all that was said in those articles. They only have a little bit of info. For the first one, you'll need a currency translator to get the USD figure. For the second one, you can just say officials declared a disaster area for 15 Tamaulipas municipalities. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, another image would be nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote exactly what you said, Ok! Have converted damage to 2000 USD, don't know how to convert to 2006 USD. RaNdOm26 08:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I recommend using this site for inflation calcs. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Anything more I can do now? RaNdOm26 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Try rewriting the first paragraph of the storm history. It's a bit technical and wordy. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A rewrite???!!! Really, a little bit technical wouldn't hurt. What needs to be rewritten? RaNdOm26 04:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It just seems longer than necessary, mainly in the day before it formed. Diurnal heating and the specifics of the recon flight seem unnecessary. Parts of the second are a bit wordy, as well. "Six hours later, the storm appeared to increase its speed to near 9 mph (15 km/h). This would mean that landfall would happen sooner, which lessened the likelihood that Beryl would become a hurricane" This could just be rewritten to, "The storm accelerated towards the coast, preventing the time for Beryl to strengthen. "However, Beryl failed to undergo significant intensification as was forecast, as it maintained an intensity of 50 mph (85 km/h)" could just be merged with the subsequent sentence. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I think the storm history is not longer than necessary, it isn't much longer than other storm articles, including those that existed for a short time. RaNdOm26 05:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
<--
Yea, that looks better. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, anymore I can do? I left diurnal heating/recon flight there because I think it's appropriate for a little explanation what caused the deep convection and the upgrade. RaNdOm26 06:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you used all of the good info from the discos? Hurricanehink (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have. I've re-checked all the ones I haven't used. Why don't you look it up yourself, if there's anything you see as important? RaNdOm26 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have, then it's probably comprehensive enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That's OK. RaNdOm26 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Added HPC's rainfall page and rainfall image for Beryl.  Thegreatdr 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well-written
Compelling prose - Pass
Logical structure - Pass, though I'd like to see some more work on the lede. For example, could you come up with a better opening sentence?
Follows MOS - Pass
Jargon terms explained or wikilinked - Pass
Factually accurate - Pass
Broad - Pass from an English point of view, though there could be more info out there in Spanish sources. No biggie, though.
Non-Pov/Stable - Pass
Images - Pass
Good work Random26, I passed the GA nom. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Beryl (2000). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001235420/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2000beryl.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2000beryl.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)