Talk:Hurricane Danielle (2004)

message: The insanity begins... ;) What's needed is inline sourcing, and a little more outside of Storm History. You could do a Forecasting section by using the tropical discussions. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cape Verde storms tend to have long storm history sections; see Hurricane Irene (2005) for a similar one (of course this needs a lot of work, I did it from scratch tonight - same with Earl) CrazyC83 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, not a bad job do far. The storm history is good, but it needs more than just that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for a seperate forecasting section, that can be interlaced into the rather short history section (on lines of Irene). The intro should be expanded significantly and the non-retirement of the name should be included. And everything should be inline ref'd and 'ed. Pictures too; I'll go hunting for MODIS when I get the chance.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Irene had at least Impact and naming. Danielle didn't have anything outside of impact, so a forecasting section, while a little redundant, could provide something else. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: #1. It is well written. - yes
#2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.  -yes
#3. It is broad in its coverage. - covers full event
#4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. - yes
#5. It is stable - yes
#6. It contains images, where possible... - yes
Comments:  The citions should probably use , and dates such as August 16 shouldn't be linked. The article covers what happened with the storm, how did the predictions fair for it? Were any areas evacuated? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

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 updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Basically a storm that caused no impacts, and nothing special about MH. Not really notable. --219.79.126.130 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, mundane Cape Verde hurricane with minimal land impacts, and a storm that would not be given an article with today's standards. But please wait for more input before taking any action. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk ·  contributions) 04:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I came here to propose merging the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  02:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Support per TropicalAnalystwx13 and Hurricanehink. MarioJump83! 10:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment Has the merge moratorium expired yet? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's expired since February 23. MarioJump83! 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Then, merge. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Why is this even an article. Danielle had no impacts on land or ships, and was not a major meteorological oddity. This should have been merged in 2020 when this first came up.DachshundLover82 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per TropicalAnalystwx13 and Hurricanehink. MarioJump83! 10:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment Has the merge moratorium expired yet? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's expired since February 23. MarioJump83! 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Then, merge. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued discussion