Talk:Hurricane Danny (2003)

message: Use more than the TCR. You should mention that early forcasts never predicted Danny to strengthen much. Also, there's a possible record. Didn't Danny become a hurricane further north than any other July storm? That's something worth researching. I'm also pretty sure it caused high seas on Bermuda. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There, I finished redoing it. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. Where did you find the record? Or did you search through the entire HURDAT catalogue? Pobbie Rarr 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yea, I searched through the entire Hurdat catalogue, but it didn't take too long. All I did was go to Unisys and look at each year. If the first storm was in August or September, I hit backspace (taking only a second). If the first storm was before August, I looked to see if it was a hurricane (if not, backspace took only a second). If it was, then I looked individually at where each pre-August storm became a hurricane. The next closest, IIRC, was the 1959 Escuminac Hurricane, which reached that intensity at 38.4. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'll need to read a bit more re. GA nom. – Chacor 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: I pass this article on account of three reasons, which were executed quite well. They are A(A well referenced article), B) while the references include many statitics, it is written in the form of An article and C) it is  rated BClass article. The only failing criteria I based on is images, which could go along with the Impact and Record section. It is not only well-written but is an article that stays on the topic with sections that are necessary. The lead section could be enhanced but it does tell you the date of the event, which is the significant. It explains what season it came from. The lead gives some points on what the article is about, a category 1 hurricane.
The hyperlinks in the text such as banding features and wind shear, were rightfully specified. Their futhermor are some minor things to specify. This article is could be a little more stable. Its only been around for a month a two days. And edits change like "Stock Markets". Also I do fell that the fact that Danny did not affect land is important but didn't have to be reinstated in the text.  This article again accurately references the statistics of Hurricane Danny, but should display the actual statistics on the article. Needs more external links. And last, this covers all the aspects of Danny, in the since that its damage was fair.
Now I'm going to do a quick look at review.
* Support - the use of unknown terms, the date of the event and how it progress. 
* Support - Needs to add more external links, and pictures. Needs to add statistics.
And that's all
Showmanship is the key 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Those two external links are the two most important links that should be in that section, as nothing else would really fit there. Being the two primary links I used, anything else would be useless. Any other pictures would be low-quality satellite images of the storm at a weaker intensity, as there was no damage to have damage pics. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed GA 

message: Anyone else agree this article is there and close to passing an FAC? CrazyC83 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to A-class? 

message: 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 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 added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: This storm has done nothing except prompting a few warnings and a loopy track, that's it. I propose this be delisted from GA status and propose a merger on this one. iPhoneHurricane95 18:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter too much in my opinion. The season is already an FT, and even though the list of storms article will probably be merged soon, whether or not this gets merged has no effect, since there would still be 9 FA's out of 17 articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  13:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no huge advantage either way. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment