Talk:Hurricane Cleo (1958)

Hurricane Cleo (1958) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 28, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Wrong Cleo - the 1958 Cleo, which hit Category 5, did not affect land at all...

You're right, this was pulled word-for-word from my article about Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes. That article is about the 1964 Cleo.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

I'm not sure about the importance. Some things to do would be fix some Wikilinks (dates should always be Wikilinked due to user preferences), shorten the lede a bit (since the article is so short, no need for it to go into so much detail; on the other hand, it'd be nice if you specified what the other two storms were in the second sentence), integrate the two quotes (they're not really "quotes", and they're in the PD), and avoid the usage of calling the storm "Cleo" - while occasionally it is fine, remember that the system was a hurricane, not a person. ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The usage of quotes in the article is a bit awkward, such as "large cyclonic circulation", or as a "severe storm,". The quotes should be re-written so it flows better with the prose. Also, the lede is a bit long, and could probably be trimmed a bit.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Perhaps put the Cat. 5 hurricanes template at the right of the second section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall a good article. Good work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Let's have a formal merge discussion here, since this is holding up the GTC. Although the storm was (apparently) a Category 5, it didn't do much of anything, and the content here is pretty minimal. I removed some redundant information (such as some random wind reports that weren't the peak, as well as some info cited to HURDAT that wasn't backed up). I think the article could, and should, be merged in full. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think it be weird being the only Cat 5 without an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a little inconsistent. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are storms as strong as Cleo in other basins that don't have articles. I don't see an issue. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Merge – Despite the fact that Hurricane Cleo was a Category 5, at least for the time being, I believe that it should be merged with the season article. The information in Cleo could easily fit into the season section without loss of pertinent information. Hurricane Cleo itself is not very notable, as being strong is its only distinguishing factor. Since Cleo was a part of the 1958 Atlantic hurricane season, treat it with Wikipedia:Summary style, which basically states that articles should be split from a main article if it is of sufficient notability per se and would be difficult to explain details without additional "space." As with Hurricane Cleo, it is rather easy to summarize in the season article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on this? It's holding up a GTC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After re-thinking it over on IRC, I understand the argument to merge such article, so I will let this go. I don't wanna make the editing atmosphere toxic, after all. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I am a user contribs stalker)I second (or third) the merge per Hink and TAM. United States Man (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the top. Do you see the project banner? No, so that means it is already gone :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]