# Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha

So, can anyone tell me what this article has that the 2005 season article doesn't/shouldn't? OK, so it was the first time greek letters were used. That's nice. We have a disambig page that explains that, at Tropical Storm Alpha. An article on the notable naming is useful; an article on the storm, which was itself rather unnotable, is not, and should redirect to the season. --Golbez 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if nobody has anything more to write about it, the article should be merged back in to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.  The reason has nothing to do with notability (Alpha wasn't in any way notable, but that's not the point).  The reason is that this article should not exist if that article already has the exact same thing as a summary.  Only if the summary is shorter than the full text should the article exist.  However there's no need for an edit war here.  Since the storm is no longer active, making this decision isn't time-sensitive.  My suggestion is to add {{merge}} to the article and give people a few weeks to write about it. Jdorje 01:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Simple answer: The death toll. and I wouldn't had gone to all the trouble of creating it if it weren't that high. --Revolución (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, plus it is long enough that the article makes sense and establishes notability. Even though I doubt the name will be retired (26 deaths in Haiti is not exactly worthy of retirement - Gordon killed more than 50x that and wasn't retired after all!) CrazyC83 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, now, we can build this up easier. With the Wilma page pretty much slowed down, we can focus more on this. Being in the shadows of Wilma made information much slower with Alpha. CrazyC83 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Golbez:  This article is a reasonable addition to wikipedia.  If you are so convinced the article is unnecessay, please go through the AfD process.  Please do not remove the article and replace with a redirect, then label doing so a "minor edit", as you did here.  Thank you:  

01:52, 28 October 2005 Golbez m (Reverted edits by Titoxd to last version by Golbez)
—Gaff ταλκ 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment:  I think discussing this and perhaps merging into parent article are reasonable.  The above entry was entered because I did not think that simply unilaterally deciding to redirect was appropriate.  —Gaff ταλκ 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

{{mergedisputed}}
While I hope this merge doesn't come off, unless someone has more to add to this article I think it should be merged back in a few weeks.  The current three-and-a-half paragraphs plus one picture are the exact same length as the summary entry in that article.  While we could certainly make the summary entry shorter (and will, if this article stays), the fact is this article needs more fleshing out.  What I'd particularly like to see:

Pictures of damage in Hispanolia.
More text in the "impact" section.  Right now it's just a list of things damaged and people killed.  Please turn it into some actual prose (and if a list is needed as part of this, then include it as a real list).
Less about the 1933 and 1972 seasons.  At least this shouldn't be in the _summary_ for the storm.
Personally I'd really like to see an animated gif of Alpha getting eaten by Wilma.  But that's just because I saw this on the news and thought it was really cool.
Jdorje 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed with the merge - see above. The death toll and new damage availability will build this up some more. (Also, many old legendary storms have shorter articles) CrazyC83 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge.  Death toll is relatively low compared to other tropical cyclones that have hit Hispaniola.  Jeanne killed thousands there as a tropical storm last year.  I mean there were 12 deaths there from Hurricane Wilma and Wilma never came within a few hundred miles of the island.  I don't mean to sound insensitive with these remarks, it's just a fact of life, due to the terrain and living conditions of the island, it is extremely susceptible to tropical cyclones.  There isn't much said on this article that isn't already said on the parent article.  --Holderca1 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Do NOT Merge.  As someone pointed out on another page since deleted, we need to take an NPOV and realize that too much of our storm coverage is U.S.-centric.  Alpha did a lot of damage to Hispaniola that those countries can't deal well with.  If anything, instead of merging, simply combining this article with the ambiguous disambiguation page would make more sense.  Then there's a Tropical Storm Alpha page, primarily about 2005's storm; with good italicized disambiguation information at the top about the other two Alphas.  --Sturmde 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Whether we put the text in its own article or have the exact same text in the main article doesn't change the amount of storm coverage provided.  If you want to increase the storm coverage of non-US countries, then write some! Jdorje 00:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's hold off. I am against merging it now because it is expected travel over the mountains of Honduras and could potentially cause heavy damage there. If it does not, then we should merge it. But if it does, and we merge it now, then we'd have to create the article from scratch. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Eric... it's Alpha we're talking about here, not Beta ;) -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Do NOT merge this article is becoming much more developed than it was around the time I created it. Thanks to those who are contributing. --Revolución (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge STRONGLY - there is no additional info here than from the main article. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
No Merge.  Good article, reasonable topic.—Gaff ταλκ 03:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment:  I actually suggested a page in Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_9#Alpha a few days before Wilma was formed.  Everybody disagreed.  I don't understand why people would be agreeing now, considering it wasn't much of a major hurricane. Tcwd (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge Signifigant milestone, not a signifigant storm. TimL 13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge Not enough information to have a separate article. Just make the main article longer. Hurricanehink 14:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hold on.  This isn't an official Articles for Deletion page.  Why are people voting on the article's deletion here?  Cornince 14:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
We aren't voting for it to be deleted, we are voting on whether to merge it back to the main page or not. --Holderca1 19:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge this with the main article on the season.  Becoming the first Atlantic tropical storm to be given a Greek letter name is more a matter of coincidence than notoriety.  I do not think the impact of this storm warrants a seperate article, either. Arkyan 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Changed my mind - should be merged. At the very least, the main article should be removed from this page and moved to the disambiguation. Death toll not high enough to warrant retirement, and otherwise not long enough - basically a series of stubs. CrazyC83 05:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. Just look at the article - there's more information in it than we could fit into a sub-section on the hurricane season page. The more WP has about an event, the better, and having a separate article clearly makes room for more information. Merging it back into the main page would lead to deletion of WP material - something I'm never happy about. --Mark J 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not Merge.  This is the first tropical system that started with a greek letter.  THat is very significant. Rogue Leader 12:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Alpha has been used before.  Also, the main page already talks about the greek letters whether this has its own page or not.  --Holderca1 16:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge. For all the reasons stated above. ColdCaffeine 13:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge. The article's contents are already contained within the main 2005 Season article. This article adds nothing new. Worse storms than Alpha don't have their own pages. Looking at the list of storms by ACE, the ones with their own articles are all at the top of the list, with exception of Stan (short-lived, but caused major flooding), Vince (only recorded storm to make landfall in Iberia) and Beta (which is still active). Tompw 15:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Good God I must have been asleep. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses NSLE. Wow I was so out of it. This storm was bad, but not so much as to warrent its own article. It is borderline though. We still have a US bias on article creation. Alex and Bertha both got articles. But those article offer new and interesting information, this one basically just copies or rewords what is already said in the main article. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the bias is as much our fault is it the media.  The U.S. media has a much larger voice in the world then does the rest of N. America.  So there is a lot more information available to put into the articles.  Although, I think Alex should be merged as well, 1 death and less than $5 million in damage?  Hardly warrants it.  I think we do need to come up with some type of standard as to when a storm article is created, I know, I know, when the information exceeds what can be held in the main article.  Well, that hasn't really helped in this matter.  Okay, here is my criteria (I will probably add more to it later).
All retired names get an article
All landfalling major hurricanes get an article
Tropical storms never get their own article unless they get their named retired (as in Allison) or cause an unusually high death toll.
I will think of more later. --Holderca1 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Merge- this article is notable for its deathtoll which is significant, just because some storms caused more deaths doensn't make this less signficant and this is the first ever storm named Alpha in the Atlantic. All Greek named storms don't deserve an article but surely the first ever does. 12.220.47.145 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The death toll is not significant.  Hurricane Wilma almost killed as many in Hispaniola than Alpha did and Wilma did not even come close to the island.  Hurricane Gordon killed nearly as many in Hispaniola as Katrina did in the U.S. but Gordon's name was not retired.  Tropical waves cause hundreds of death all the time there.  A death toll of 26 is hardly significant. --Holderca1 04:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge. There is far too much information in this article to compress into a reasonable size for the main 2005 page. While some information could simply be cut, why remove information? Even though we do not have articles on similar storms from previous years, this is more because Wikipedia did not exist at the time than because such storms were not worthy of articles, and now information about them is too difficult to come by. -- Cuivienen 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that's simply not true... if you compare this article and the info on Alpha in 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season, you'll see this article contains the same infomation. So, no infomation would be lost by merging this article. Tompw 23:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Merge. Practically any cyclone that hits Hispaniola is bound to kill 20+ people. Alpha is not notable fot its death toll. And we don't need a whole article to say that Alpha marked the first time that the list of names ran out. That could be said in the main article. 200.124.33.78 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Merge, simply because it is a historic storm, it is the first one to  be taken from the Greek alphabet. The last storm of this season would also be historic, as it would be the most named storms in a season. (whatever that might be, Beta, for the time being). As for duplicating information, simply summarize it more in the 2005 season article. 132.205.46.167 00:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at it this way, is the first person to break the minute-mile notable? Yes. This storm is the first named storm to go beyond the list, so it's notable because of that. The season is notable because it has so many storms, but that's a different notability. 132.205.46.167
So you are saying that the last storm of the season should get it's own article regardless of what it does?  So a fish spinning storm named Delta (or whatever it may be) should have its own article?  What would be said other than it is the record setting storm?  You would have a one paragraph article that is impossible to expand upon. --Holderca1 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Merge - there are far sillier and less notable articles that are welcomed and permitted to exist. If people of Hispanolia dominated Wikipedia the question of merging wouldn't occur! Donama 02:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
That there are "far sillier and less notable articles" does't mean we should make more of them.200.124.33.78 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Do not Merge - 24 fatalities merits an article.  Historic storm also. Jendeyoung 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Many other tropical storms, some with over a hundred deaths, don't have an article. Why should Alpha, which was guaranteed to kill many since it hit Hispaniola, be an exception? 200.124.33.78 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
Do Not Merge - Only one less direct fatality than Hurricane Wilma. Plus the fact that it was the first hurricane ever not to be named with a human name. I think it's worth an article. -newkai | talk | contribs 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Do research please. --Golbez 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hurricanes were named based on the Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet from 1950 to 1952.200.124.33.78 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge until it outgrows the season page. I have not seen it indicated that it is larger than what the summary article needs, and that's as good a criteria as any. The storm was generally unnotable; a lot of other things killed 24 people this year that don't have an article. Only those storms which outgrow their articles, or are sufficiently individually notable (John and Tip, for example - the longest-lived and most intense storms on record - a short article is sufficient to set them apart, because their inherent notability demands it, even though their articles are [presently] short. --Golbez 20:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Can one of you people who thinks the article should stay please spend some time to improve it a little?  In fact, can everyone who spent time voting on whether to merge the article instead spend your future time improving it?  I just did a once-over on it, before which the quality was horribly low.  Some picutures would really help and would probably justify a separate article on their own (since unlike everything else in this article, they are not included in the main article already). Jdorje 05:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is too large as it is, and separate articles should probably be made on several of the storms to prevent further bloat. There's enough information to have this as an article, and I think it's easily notable enough, with 26 deaths hardly being anything to scoff about, combined with its historical notability as the first Atlantic storm to utilize a Greek letter, I see this one as being a shoe-in. Frankly I'd like to eventually see all tropical storms have their own independent articles, and then a condensed description on the main storm season page. With the current Wikipedia rate of expansion, that is what will eventually happen. I would suggest that the description of this storm (and others with independent articles) be condensed on the season page, and expressed in depth in individual pages such as this. I noticed that people have been working towards this recently, but even still the article is over twice the suggested article size. Merging information back in and then using that article as the place to expand on individual storms is just asking for trouble. Sarge Baldy 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Since I have improved this article to a minimal level of quality and length to justify keeping it around (in my opinion), I withdraw the merge proposal.  For the record, the amount of effort needed to do this was much less than what you have all spent trying to convince us that the article shouldn't be merged.  My merge proposal was an attempt to get some of you to actually spend some time improving the article, but as such it was a total failure.  Since I added the merge proposal I figured it would be okay if I removed it...although I know that others are still in favor of the merge and you may of course feel free to add it back. Jdorje 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Do not merge. Content will be lost. Rangeley 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting this article to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. --Revolución (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why?? Alpha has very little chance of being retired and there could be a Alpha storm next year unless they change the way they name storms.  This should be moved back.  --Holderca1 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Per the conversation with the individual that made the change, I changed it back.  --Holderca1 17:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, mainly because there have been Alphas in the past. Tropical Storm Alpha should be the disambiguation page. CrazyC83 16:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no need for the "(2005)", as stated below this is the first "Tropical Storm Alpha."

by merging you are effectively deleting the article, so I urge you to go through the WP:AFD process instead. --Revolución (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that.  If those so hellbent on eliminating this article insist on it, when minor league baseballplayers, state highway route numbers, the lineups of lesser teams in the Spanish football leagues, Star Trek episodes, and B-movie Hollywood types and other non-"life and death" articles can continue and be expanded upon... I think that a record breaking tropical storm, the first ever named by an unexpected-to-be-used contingency, that ends up damaging the homes of thousands, and kills a few dozen is worthy of a brief mention in an article of its own.  The main article for this 2005 season is already way long and if Alpha and other storms retain their own pages, the main page information can be shortened to a general season summary and articles like these contain more specific and detailed information storm-by-storm. Wikipedia is supposed to allow for an encyclopedic coverage contributed by many members: not pigeonholed by a few members. --Sturmde 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, nothing will be deleted, everything mentioned here is in the main article.  --Holderca1 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If Alpha warrants its own article, then we need to write articles on every landfalling storm.  Why is Alpha more notable than Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Gert, Jose and Tammy? --Holderca1 04:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If Alpha warrants its own article, it will be because people write an article that is warranted.  If someone writes a good article about one of those other storms, there's no reason it shouldn't stay.  I don't think arguments about other unwarranted articles are really an issue here.  I have no problem with short and to-the-point articles but I do have a problem with duplicated information. Jdorje 05:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I just think it needs to be standardized.  The way we have been doing by whether it's too long for the main article doesn't work because it gets created anyway.  We need to create a standard for when a storm warrants its own article.  This will also prevent the so called U.S. bias due to more media attention to U.S. storms.  The system is broke, we need to fix it.  --Holderca1 06:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaning more and more toward giving every storm its own article... Jdorje 15:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To those who want to retain this article, I ask: what infomation does this article contain that is not in the main article? Tompw 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To which a Socratic reply would be why should the main article be unbelievably large when separate articles for most storms would compartmentalize better?
... because that's not the reason given to keep this article seperate. It also doesn't asnwer my question. Tompw 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to delete this article, then delete all the other articles in Category:Tropical storms. oh wait, you don't want to delete those, because (except for Odette) they made landfall in the U.S. Be consistent people, if you don't like accusations of U.S. bias then don't take actions which support the idea that you are putting forth that bias --Revolución (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Allison was retired, so that can be used in the bias.  Alberto is the worst disaster in Georgia history, can Haiti say the same about Alpha?  Of the four storms in that category, Alpha is by far the least notable. --Holderca1 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, Odette (which has an article) made landfall in the same place, but caused 10 deaths, compared to Alpha's 26 --Revolución (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It was also the first storm to form in December in nearly 20 years and the only deadly December storm in recorded history. Other than that it was completely unnotable (end sarcasm). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
<sarcasm> And this is the first storm in the Atlantic to use Greek letters ever since the naming convention started </sarcasm>... Douglasr007 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but makes the season notable, not the storm. Tompw 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is completely ridiculous to have a disambiguation page, or a (2005) at the end of the name, because there has NEVER been another Tropical Storm Alpha!  The 1972 Atlantic hurricane season storm was Subtropical Storm Alpha (strong emphasis on the subtropical), and was named for the NATO phonetic alphabet, as all subtropical storms (which were called neutercanes then) were in those two years.  The 1973 storm was Subtropical Storm Alfa, which was not only not a tropical storm, but was not even spelled the same!  (Both were followed by a Subtropical Storm Bravo).  If Alpha and Alfa became tropical, they were renamed with a proper tropical storm name.  
If this extraordinary and unprecedented hurricane season should repeat itself (it hasn't in at least 155 years), and the NHC and WMO fail to add X/Y/Z names, only then could there ever be another Tropical Storm Alpha.  The likelihood of this is extremely remote: 1/155 is less than 2/3%.    –radiojon 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see a point for a disambiguation if there has never been a tropical storm named Alpha before. --Revolución (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is that when disambiguating among storms with unlike prefixes (like Typhoon Ivan and Hurricane Ivan) the prefix "tropical storm" is to be used.  Thus the disambiguation is named correctly. Jdorje 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation may be used correctly in that situation but both Typhoons and Hurricanes ARE Tropical Storms.  Suptropical storms ARE NOT Tropical Storms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.244.215.19 (talk • contribs) 
Furthermore, naming it Tropical Storm Alpha fits our current practice of putting the disambig pages at the name of the strongest storm. And Jdorje, I wouldn't claim consensus on that just yet, just because no one has yet vociferously complained does not mean consensus exists. --Golbez 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're right Golbez (actually I would prefer Tropical Cyclone Alpha (disambiguation) though I can see that's not quite right for subtropical storms).  Regardless, a disambiguation page is needed and it has to be named something. Jdorje 20:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the use of (2005), it is current practice that names that aren't retired get the year in the name.  See Hurricane Gordon (1994).  Though we obviously don't know if Alpha is to be retired, it most likely will not be.  And that means eventually there will be another alpha. Jdorje 20:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
That current practice is sparse and in fault; I personally think we should change those. Disambiguation by parentheses should usually only be done when necessary. That Gordon is easily THE most notable Gordon, we don't need to use a year identifier just because the WMO wanted to stick it to Haiti. --Golbez 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and come to a consensus there?  The problem with all previous "standards" and "consensuses" is that they take place on the talk page of some obscure storm or season, and thus aren't really standard or consensus at all. Jdorje 20:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I firmly believe a disambiguation is needed and should be pointed to from the article page.  However I don't care whether the article is named Alpha or Alpha (2005). Jdorje 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Honestly people, if as much time that has been spent on this talk page as the article, then this article wouldn't be fighting for its life rather than a merger. --Holderca1 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Subtropical storms can be easily confused for tropical storms, and they should treated as the same thing here. CrazyC83 07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Amen. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The point of disambiguation is so that people can choose between other identical page names.  Clearly "Tropical Storm Alpha" is not identical to "Subtropical Storm Alpha" or "Subtropical Storm Alfa", therefore a disambiguation page is not needed.  As a courtesy to readers however, it should have links to those two other storms.  This fulfills the purpose of the disambiguation page in a much more streamlined way.  I also must point out that in 155 Atlantic hurricane seasons, there has never been a 22nd tropical or subtropical storm (in any basin for that matter), so it is extremely unlikely to occur again anytime soon (i.e. this century).  If that somehow is the case, and the NHC and WMO will not create X/Y/Z names, only then is disambiguation warranted (unless it is subtropical, in which case the dab page would go there).   –radiojon 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation is unnecessary as no other tropical storm in the the entire history of the world has bore this name. Rangeley 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Two subtropical storms have. Stop being semantic. --Golbez 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
While I'm against their argument, I think their argument is exactly that - there were two subtropical storms, but only one tropical storm. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Insert "But if there was only one hurricane X and two tropical storm X, Hurricane X should not go to the disambig page!" here. --Golbez 19:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There has never been a Tropical Storm Ophelia either, but we still have a disambiguation page for it.  Why?  Because we disambiguate between storms of different types that have the same name, and we use the prefix "Tropical Storm" for this when the prefixes are conflicting. Jdorje 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Move request not fulfilled, insufficient consensus. Rob Church Talk 23:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Good content, but this has too much of a work-in-progress feel so I put it at Start-class.

Main problem is I think this hasn't been really updated with official information.  Given the irregular sources it's hard to verify death or damage numbers.  Just as an example the first sentence in the Haiti section does not add up because the two parts come from conflicting sources.
Sources.  Lots of sources are provided, just change them to reference notation.
Pictures.  I'm sure some impact pictures can be found.
Jdorje 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Who objects if I completely redo this page? Juliancolton (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you withdraw you GA nomination. There are dozens of typos, the impact section is very short (what about the death in the Bahamas?), and there's no mention of the storm being absorbed by Wilma in the storm history (it's stated in the lede), and those are just three things I noticed in one quick glance. Please clean up the article, and look at it thoroughly (and please do not go through it once, clean up a few things, and claim it to be done; please spend some serious time and effort before asking for re-assessment). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Done with the typos, I changed some wording, I fixed the SH, and I am still looking for more impact, although I did add a little bit. Is it good enough to stay at GAN now? Juliancolton (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there are still typos! The writing is, overall, not so good, and the impact is pretty short for a storm that killed 43. I'm concerned in how you considered deaths indirect or direct. This is clearly not good enough for GA status, and it will take much more work to get it there. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense; I ran a spell checker in it several times, and it comes up with nothing. As for the impact, I am still looking. However, the only info I have found so far just says the deaths. Well, is it at least B? Juliancolton (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it B class, personally. As I said, there are still typos, several unsourced statements, the storm history is awkward, and better impact. There's some more impact from the TCR, but, regarding the deaths, I still very much have a problem calling some deaths direct and others indirect, when the sources don't say if it was either. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what the difference between a direct and an indirect deaths is. But, I will continue working. Juliancolton (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there are still several aspects of the article that are inadequate, and thus I recommend you withdraw the GA, particularly since you are still working on it (thus failing the stability criterion). As I said before, please do not go through it once, clean up a few things, and claim it to be done; please spend some serious time and effort before asking for re-assessment). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the entire SH, the lede, the impact, and some of the naming. I don't call that cleaning up a few things. ;) Anyway, I will withdraw, but when I am done working on it, I will put it back up. Juliancolton (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense at all? A tropical wave, which had started out from Africa about October 15, then reached the Windward Islands on October 19 and organized into a tropical depression about 180 miles southwest of San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 22. Juliancolton (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Unless I am missing something, that is pretty standard for Atlantic storms generated from tropical waves. Plasticup T/C 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)/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 status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
In the first paragraph of the lede, you say  "It's remnant low was absorbed".  Err...what's a remnant low?
A remnant low pressure area. I linked it to Low pressure area. Plasticup T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Consider adding a sentence summarizing the "Naming and records" section to the lede
I thought it was (Tropical Storm Alpha was the 23rd named storm of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season) but I added a bit more about it being the first tropical system name "Alpha". Plasticup T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the lede, it says it was the 8th wettest storm to hit Haiti, in the chart in the "Preparations and impact" section it says it's the 10th.  Which?
It was the 8th and has since been surpassed by two more storms. This is now clarified in the body of the article. Plasticup T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Be on the look out for jargon, and either wikilink it or explain it in the article.  For example, in the first paragraph alone of the "Storm history" section, you have "convective activity", "wind shear", "closed circulation" and "cyclonic circulation" among others.  I'm not saying you have to remove all of these, just try to make it a bit easier for the average reader to figure out what you're saying without having to go looking for a dictionary :)
I have had a run through looking for this, and have added a few wikilinks. The storm history is a technical section and not everyone will understand every word, but let me know if you think any sections are unduly confusing. Plasticup T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the "Storm history" section, you say "While convection remained in bands, the low level circulation was disrupted by land, thus, leaving a very ill-defined center, which made locating the center difficult."  This has lots of clauses and reads rather awkwardly.  Perhaps reword as "...circulation was disrupted by land and left a very ill-defined center that was difficult to locate." Or something along those lines.
I have reworded that sentence too. Plasticup T/C 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Refs 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 all have a title that says they're 2002 data, but when you click on the link, they go to all different years.  Are these titles wrong or am I just missing something?  Same with 16 and 18 both saying they're 2007 data.
It took me a while to find them; they are transcluded from a Template. Should be fixed. Plasticup T/C 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 14 (Dunn) needs publisher info
Ditto. Plasticup T/C 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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: 

Overall, this is a well-written and well-referenced article.  All of the things detailed above are fairly minor and should be easy and quick to fix.  I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to make these few tweaks.  If you have questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and thanks for the quick response.  I am passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)