Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Debby (1994)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTropical Storm Debby (1994) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Why?[edit]

I see no reason for this storm to have a separate article... — jdorje (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hurricanehink 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it because it was requested at the Article request and you agreed that there should be a separate artice on this storm. Storm05 13:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only agreed because, at the time, I thought more information would have been available for a fuller article. That doesn't seem to be the case. I'll go back and revote for all articles. Hurricanehink 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your revotes. Storm05 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also you did not revote all the storms you only revoted only the Alantic Storms from 1958 to 1999 and ignored the votes from the pre 1950 Atlantic storms, WPAC, EPAC and S. Hemisphere storms. Storm05 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your revotes. I'll to the others later. Hurricanehink 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added damage totals Storm05 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I revoke my merge comment, and based on the damage this can stay. However, more is still needed. Hurricanehink 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That's not enough damage and the article isn't that great. At least 15 dead and/or $300 million in damage is the threshold in my book. There are a couple storm articles that fail to meet that criteria but, then again, it's just my opinion. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
$294 million is close enough. The article isn't great, but there's always room for improvement. Hurricanehink 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still quite uncomfortable with this one's existance. It's kind of like how I feel about the Cindy article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, it's that bad? J/K, but the article does need a lot of work. However, I think it is notable enough. Hurricanehink 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--- unindented... I'd like to think my copyedit(s) of this article went quite a way to improving it. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 01:08 UTC (2006-04-12)

Very true. It is much better than when first started, but I meant it needs more impact. Hurricanehink 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

More everything wherever possible. Fix spelling errors, too. Hurricanehink 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Debby (1994)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm most impressed with your work! As per our recent interaction, I did a copyedit (here's the diff). I have just a few suggestions/comments left for you, and then will obviously be happy to promote. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, nice job! Keilana|Parlez ici 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]