Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)

Todo

More impact, pictures, references. Jdorje 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I notched it down to a Start class... not quite good enough for B. What might help is this website. Hurricanehink 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Inline references would get it to C class, should anyone ever get to it. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any direct fatalities?

Juliancolton 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and look for the answer.^Mitch32^contribs 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2-diana.jpg

Image:2-diana.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

   Standard topics: meteorological history, preparations, impact and aftermath

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):

   4 images, all public domain and hosted at the Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I cannot read the second ref I found Diana 1984 and I can see the dates, but some kind of note in the reference information (but outside the cite web template) would be useful to explain how to use the reference. Nonetheless, I was able to confirm the data from the other sources [1] I got no other comments beyond that: good article. --maclean (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Preparation

I removed the sentence "NASA also redirected the scheduled landing of the Space Shuttle Discovery in Cape Canaveral, Florida to Oklahoma." from the Preparation section. Discovery had already landed at Edwards before this storm formed. It is possible that the sentence was referring to the relocation flight from Edwards back to the cape, but I was unable to find a reference for this. If someone can dig up a ref for that, it would be a great addition. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)