Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)/Archive 01

This is an archive of past discussions about Hurricane Kyle (2002). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This may be the best article I have ever written since Hurricane Gaston. Storm05 20:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your talk page. I vote for a merge. I know you might be surprised, but nearly all of it was from the NHC Kyle page, with some word substitutions across the page. There is next to no original research. Also, you are not allowed to rate your own articles. Anyone else in favor of a merge? Hurricanehink 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Me. Lasted awhile but that's all that's really notable about it. No damage was done. Merge it. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry Storm05, but this will likely be merged. What should be kept? Hurricanehink 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed storm history Storm05 13:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much. This will still likely be merged, based on its (lack of) effects. Hurricanehink 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed impact section Storm05 14:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge-really bad Why do you keep putting up articles from storms that are already in my LNBS Hurricanes,Jose (1999) and this one.HurricaneCraze32 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Lots of information here, I say keep it. Weatherman90 16:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of information duplicated from the NHC report, a lot of it is too technical. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub-class?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article is a lot better than that! I'd say it is close to FA-class! CrazyC83 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Just because it has a lot of text doesn't mean it is good. First, never look at the storm history for article quality, as any amount of text can be written there, from 5 sentences to an entire page. While the school part is interesting, it doesn't deserve 12 lines of text to describe it. That is why we have links, for the excruciating menusha that doesn't need to be said in the article. In addition, 4 lines aren't needed to describe the FEMA reaction. What could have been said about the tornado and Fema, In all, the Georgetown tornado destroyed 6 homes, damaged 100, and injured six. Despite its effects, FEMA deemed the damage too minimal, forcing the effected citizens to rely on private organizations. This occurrs in various parts of the article, when excessive detail can be said in fewer, yet neater sentences. The stub designation was for when much of the detail was cut and pasted there, and based on what was added, it is possible start class. One other problem to consider is the storm did next do nothing! It would be hard to find other, useful information for a storm that hit land as a weak tropical storm on the verge of becoming extratropical. Hurricanehink 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I seriously thought you were being sarcastic there. This article is almost a direct copy from the NHC report (albeit in the public domain, but still). The paragraph structure in this article isn't very good either. The storm also isn't that notable. All those factors combined into one compel me to vote merge. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive 17:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You can elaborate all you want for a rainshower like Kyle, but it doesn't change the fact it wasn't notable. Hurricanehink 18:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)