Talk:Tropical Depression Fourteen (1987)
 | Tropical Depression Fourteen (1987) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | Tropical Depression Fourteen (1987) is part of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Don't merge
editDont merge yet. I am looking for a monetary damage amount for the depression.HurricaneCraze32 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Todo
editMore impact. There's no need for this sort of article. While the storm history is decent (wasn't it me who wrote it a while ago?), the impact is way too short and lacking. Simply put, there's not enough information for this. Even if you do get a damage figure, it doesn't change the fact there's not much info on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, that was wrong. It needs a cleanup, however. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Lede is far too long, portions of it should be moved to storm history. Please don't refer to it as "Fourteen" in prose because "Fourteen" is not a name. "The tropical depression" or "Tropical Depression Fourteen" or even "TD-14" would work. – Chacor 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Fourteen (1987)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I will be reviewing this article which is currently up for Good Article Nomination. I should have the full review out shortly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- lead
- The opening sentence is a bit clunky at the end, can you find a way to reword it to be more appealing and more concise?
- Done.
- Met. History
- For the first sentence, can you give a date or period of the month when this low was active?
- Any date would make it a OR vio, as I have no source.
- By the morning of November 1, the depression had looked little as it had previously, and was nothing more than a swirl of low-level clouds near the center of circulation. - This could probably be shortened to say that convection had dissipated and the depression was just a swirl of low-level clouds, no need for the "looked little as it had previously"
- Done.
- After this, the depression could no longer attain the circulation it had previously developed. semi-redundant, removing it is probably an option but if you feel its necessary it can stay
- Its not redundant and the NHC certainly did the same in the PR.Mitch/HC32 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- After another reconnaissance flight was sent out to study the system, and recorded that surface area temperatures had dropped, the winds had reached 92 mph (147 km/h) and the surface area pressure had reached 998 millibars (29.47 inHg). flight-level or surface winds?
- Done.
- Preps and impact
- Looks good
All in all this is a very nice article, just a few minor things need to be done before I can pass the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Everything looks good now, nice work Mitch, I'm passing the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)