Talk:Hurricane Karl (2004)

Merge

This should be merged. There is no info from here that is not in the seasonal article, and its effects were more of less non-existant. You should never use the word I in a Wikipedia article, as in when it is stated "as i've read". In addition, this is an encyclopedia, not a weather almanac. Menial storms like this don't need articles. Hurricanehink 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no value to this one. Merging now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. Hurricanehink 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No merge yet?

How come this article still hasn't been merged? No improvement on details, writing, information, and organization has been made, yet this article remains. Can it be merged now? Thanks. CapeVerdeWave 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been unmerged and is in the sloowww process of being developed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Karl (2004)/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, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The "See also" section goes before the references.  Done.
   • In the "Storm history" section, you say " (Jeanne became a major hurricane later). ". This sentence is probably unneccessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're trying to get at is that Karl became a hurricane before Jeanne, which developed first but more slowly. True? This is probably allright to leave out. However, if you want to leave it in, you should have a little more explanation and context surrounding this sentence. It took me several times of reading the sentence to figure out what you were getting at, and that you weren't just sticking a random reference to Jeanne in the middle of the Karl article for no reason. Make sense?

   • Yes, and I removed that statement. I agree, it didn't have much context with the article, and I didn't want to risk mild coatracking when it's easy enough to remove the fact. Jamie^☆S93 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   • Could the Storm Path graphic be moved down several paragraphs? MOS discourages having text "sandwiched" between two graphics (or a graphic and the infobox, as it is here), as well as discouraging having an image separating the header from the text with an image left aligned directly under the header. If the image was moved down a paragraph or so below the infobox, while still being left aligned, it would be much better.

   • I moved the image only a couple of paragraphs down in the article. You can see it for yourself, but I don't think it looks very nice that way. It's the norm for tropical cyclone articles to have the storm track image at the top of "Storm history" (below the section header), by the way, which does make sense because the storm's track is directly related to its history section. Let me know what you think, though; if need be, I'm willing to come to some compromise with this. Jamie^☆S93 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a well written article. I am putting the article on hold to allow time to work on the minor concerns listed above. If you have any questions, please ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing this article for GA. As far as the image goes: I like it where you have it now. However, if you prefer it the other way, you can move it back and I won't hold up the GA nom. It's completely up to you where the image ends up. However, if you plan to take the article to FA and you move the image back, you're probably going to take some flak about the text sandwiching. That's my thoughts on the subject, and now I'm going to go pass the article! Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Hurricane Karl (2004)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to merge after a discussion at Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Karl_(2004)_into_2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Noah, AA^Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.