Talk:Tropical Depression Ten (2007)

Tropical Depression is not a hurricane

Hi. Hurricanehink reverted my edit, with the explination "same difference". What does that mean? Besides, a person reading this might think that the depression was strong enough to be called a hurricane. Obviously not, as the storm didn't even reach TS. However, an outsider might not know that. The article has proven its notability, but having see also links to notable and Florida hurricanes goes overboard. Surely the storm was too weak to be included more-than-breifly in either one of those articles? How about creating redirects to those articles from a name that does not suggest they have to be hurricanes and linking the see also to those, linking to other articles that don't have the name "hurricane" in them, or make the appearence of the link not have the word hurricane, eg. [[List of notable Atlantic hurricanes|List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones]] ? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just basic format, and for the record, an Atlantic tropical depression is indeed an Atlantic hurricane. The basic format for Atlantic articles is to include a link to List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, as well as a link to a List of XXX hurricanes article if it exists. Personally, I really don't like the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes page, so I removed it. It's no biggie. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Very well written and very well sourced. Good lede plus the prep and impact section gives very good details. B-class. ---CWY2190^TC 01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article meets the existing Good Article criteria, and will be listed. I honestly can't find anything wrong with the article. Though it is short, it is well written, well sourced, and appears to be complete, covering the meteorological aspects of the storm as well as its impact and aftermath. All images check out, and I don't see any NPOV or stability issues. Wikipedia really is becoming a good source for information on storms and meteorology, for the most part,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A GA for a storm that did no damage? Juliancolton 01:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Damage is not what makes a good article. See WP:GA?. --Coredesat 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, I was just a little suprised. Juliancolton 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we send this to FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not that kind of article. This is perfect at GA.^Mitch32^contribs 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I just wanted to check.Juliancolton (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TCR available

This needs to be updated [1] Good kitty 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like another article that the NHC used for some info. Note the mentions of evacuations, state of emergency, and the oil disruption. Of course, there aren't any copyvios, so we'll never know, unlike last time. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How did we ever find out one way or another for Chris? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The NHC copied a sentence verbatim from our article, and IIRC the sentence was a bit awkward to begin with, so it was a dead giveaway. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article may be in better shape than the TCR, since the TCR glosses over the impact of this system in peninsular Florida. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How did this ever make a good article?

I have serious doubts that this article even meets notability requirements, let alone obtain GA and FA status. Something has gone wrong with the process here. I don't think that this serves Wikipedia very well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on why you think this. The article is well-written and well-sourced, and there was enough impact for it to meet our (WikiProject Tropical Cyclones') standards for article creation. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be offended or anything. I'm just trying to figure out how a rainy and windy day was notable enough to be in Wikipedia at all, let alone become a GA. I'm willing to bet that even if you were to ask a group of weather experts, none of them could tell you anything about this obscure storm without looking it up. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Depends which "weather experts" you ask, I suppose. I know many educated and employed meteorologists who wouldn't even know that Hurricane Hattie existed, let alone that it killed over 300 people in 1961. Other scientists have encyclopedic knowledge of the HURDAT and could discuss every Atlantic tropical cyclone since the turn of the 20th century. For better or for worse, administering polls to determine the notoriety of a storm would fall solidly within the realm of original research. By all accounts this article adheres to the notability standards of its host WikiProject and Wikipedia as a whole, seeing as it's sourced to multiple distinct meteorological agencies and numerous news articles. Frankly, I'm not sure how drive-by posts diminishing the (peer-reviewed and vetted) work of contributors as evidence of a broken process could be anything but offensive, but perhaps I'm reading too far into your comments. That said, if you have any actionable concerns about the content of the article, then please post them, by all means. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's enough content for this to exist as a stand alone article. Wikipedia has articles on obscure topics. In direct answer it meets the criteria for FA; hence, it is featured. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical Depression Ten (2007). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/WTUS84-KLIX.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)