Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:52, 17 February 2023

	Weather portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This page is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

Task forces
WikiProject home	(talk)
Archives: 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34 \| 35 \| 36 \| 37 \| 38 \| 39 \| 40 \| 41 \| 42 \| 43 \| 44 \| 45 \| 46 \| 47 \| 48 \| 49
→ Western Pacific task force	(talk)
→ Eastern Pacific task force	(talk)
→ Atlantic task force	(talk)
→ North Indian Ocean task force	(talk)
→ Southern Hemisphere task force	(talk)
→ Graphics task force	(talk)
→ 2018 FT task force	(talk)
→ Weather of YYYY task force	(talk)
Newsletter	(talk)
Archives: 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34 \| 35 \| 36 \| 37 \| 38 \| 39 \| 40 \| 41 \| 42 \| 43 \| 44 \| 45 \| 46 \| 47 \| 48
Project resources	(talk)
Jargon	(talk)
WikiProject statistics	(talk)
Article requests	(talk)
Cyclone Cup	(talk)
Vital articles	(talk)
Showcase	(talk)
Style guidelines	(talk)
Awards	(talk)
Assessment
Main assessment page	(talk)
→ Assessment tables	(talk)
→ Assessment log	(talk)
→ Assessment statistics	(talk)
Tropical cyclones portal
Parent project
WikiProject Weather	(talk)

Archives: 1

Pruning knife

Well, I've now moved all of the FA discussions to their own subpages, accessible through Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/. That cut the amount of text on the page from 129 KB to 72. I've also modified {{hurricane}} to make the process much more automatic; when an assessment discussion is archived, the template looks for the existence of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/{{BASEPAGENAME}}]] page. If it finds it, then the template points directly to the archive (see for example, Talk:Hurricane Mitch. If the page does not exist, then it checks whether the assessed parameter was passed, as the template worked before.

As for archiving other non-FA discussions: feel free to do so, just don't archive anything too recent. I just did the FAs as a first pass. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added GA-class articles

Due to the significant number of articles that have moved from B to GA in the last couple weeks, I'd like to see the following articles reassessed to see if they can go to A or even onto FAC. There is a very low number of A-class articles and a high number of GA-class articles due to a lot of recent additions (and several more awaiting).

The list is as follows, in chronological order:

Any thoughts on them? CrazyC83 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat, I remember leaving assessment comments in the talk pages for Karen and Danny. I haven't had the time to review the rest... Tito xd^(?!?) 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thoughts.

Audrey- Not quite enough info. The impact section can probably be expanded, as it doesn't give much detail to the tornado outbreak. No on A class.
Linda- Needs a two paragraph intro, longer storm history if possible, make a records/statistics section, and find a way to remove some of the white space. No on A class
Alberto- Longer intro, and find a better pic than the GOES one. One those two items are fixed, I'll support A class.
Karen- I'm biased, so no comment, other than a MODIS pic should replace the one of it headed towards Canada (in the SH).
Gustav- Remove the white space in the preps section, and see if there's Newfoundland impact (it struck as a hurricane, after all). After that, I'll support A class.
Danny, Kate, Nicole, and Debby- No comment; biased.
Maria- It needs a copyedit. Phrases like "The extratropical Maria merged with..." make no sense. The impact should all be in one section w/o the sub-sections (they're too short to be separate). I'd like to see some more storm history, as it goes from development/TD in one sentence to hurricane in the next sentence. Such jumpiness is bad.
Ophelia- The impact section looks weird due to the pics. Maybe the US should have its own section (rather than Florida and NC). Impact in general should probably be expanded if it is to be called comprehensive. The aftermath section is currently a stub and needs more.

Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding Alberto) What's the GOES one? Do you mean "once" instead of "one"? I'm sort of confused. RaNdOm26 09:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOES is a program of NASA satellites, see Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite. – Ch acor 10:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already know GOES is a satellite. So, what is the GOES pic? RaNdOm26 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one. – Ch acor 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current GA-articles proposed as A-class articles

These five articles are GA's of mine, and I personally believe that are A-class worthy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Gamede, Andrea and Marco are for sure A-Class, and could go to FAC and easily pass. Inigo is a little short on impact and aftermath, but I'm sure it'll do. And Karen is probably A-class worth too, but the writing could be slightly more engaging. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here are a few more, now that we got the ball rolling. The first two are ones that others said were A-class worthy, and the rest are GA's of mine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that pops out at me the most are Alberto and Florence 1988, and maybe Daniel. Danny is pretty short on information other than storm history, so I'd prfer to see that stay at GA. And Florence 2006 is really close, but one or two of the references aren't in {{cite web}} form. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Florence, I fixed the lone ref not in cite web. For Danny, length is not an issue for A-class articles (look at TS Ana from the same year). If it's comprehensive, and it meets the other criteria, shouldn't it be promoted? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Florence 2006 is good now, and I guess Danny is A-class worthy, but I'd still like to see more information for an A-class article. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Danny, while more info would be great, it's pretty much maxed out, since it never affected land! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Marco, I would like to have more info about how it interacted with Klaus, as it seems that was relevant to its history. Overall, it is a solid A. I'd ship to FAC, after renaming Impact to Impact and aftermath.
Also, as a general note: Try to keep each section in this page to one article, as otherwise, assessed=yes points to a dead link. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-class articles for WP INDIA

Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. As this is one of the successful projects that use C-class, could someone involved in assessment please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? We need to know:

If the implementation of C-class has been effective in general?
Does C-class articles involve more red tape?
Are the lines of distinction between Start and C, and Start and B classes blurred?
Does C-class complicate the assessment process?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the first bullet point above, we'd like know something a little more specific. Has the implementation of C-class been worthwhile overall? If so, how? (Has there been evidence of an increase in the quantity or quality of output by the introduction of this grade?) Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?

If anyone is still here, should we re-activate this page? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]