Talk:Hurricane Kate (2003)

message: Very stubby. Nothing more than what's already at the seasonal article Probably qualifies for a merge, too. – Chacor 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irfanfaiz has a nice storm history here. Maybe we could use that storm history. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doin' it. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? A better request would be for someone to expand it already. It doesn't need to be merged, just stuffed. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Provisionally tagged as start. The intro is a bit long for such a relatively short article... – Chacor 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a problem with having a long intro? What else is needed for B class? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could provide a link for "tropical wave", "subtropical ridge" and "anticyclone" in the intro. And maybe abbreviating "miles" into "mi". RaNdOm26 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:LEAD re. length of intro. Not much more, are there rainfall images (either HPC or TRMM satellite ones) available? Also, this may just be me, but I think the TCR is over-cited (is there really a need to cite "Kate turned to the north and northeast"?) Also, there is no need to do any such abbrieviation. – Chacor 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, I read it. It's two paragraphs, and that's appropriate for this length. There are no rainfall images to my knowledge (checked, unless I missed it). The TCR might be over-cited, but that is where I found that particular information. I believe that every last statement in the body of the article should be sourced. The source before and after that were only discussions, and they didn't mention it turning north and northeast, so I cited the TCR. Anything else for B? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is 15% of the whole article. I still think that's a bit long. Otherwise, should be a B-class, although there are minor mistakes here and there (I spotted a referencing mistake while calculating the lead, haha). – Chacor 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that big of a deal? The lede longer because it is mostly storm history. Look at Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Its lead is 25% of the whole article, yet it's a GA. The article is comprehensive (I doubt whether there's more than 2 useful sentences out there that are not in the article), it's completely sourced down to the smallest detail. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? Might as well change "km" into "kilometre". RaNdOm26 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: :1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Good and clean written article, appropriate GA size (regarding the comment above) and well described without redundancy. Lincher 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

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 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) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kate (2003). 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/20070202175238/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm03.html to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kate (2003). 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/20060831031109/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins_e.html to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified