Talk:Hurricane Daniel (2006)

Untitled
See also:Talk:Hurricane Daniel (2006)/Archive 01

GA passed
In the words of Mitchazenia-"It's Hink's writing." Juliancolton (talk) ( Happy New Year! ) 14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Good job.
 * Relisted due to improper GA passing. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt you will, but if you want, I can review it again, and this time the right way. I tried to do it last time, but my computer crashed halfway trough the process. I will make sure to stay away from reviewing if you want. Grrr-Do I do anything right? Juliancolton (talk) ( Happy New Year! ) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'd rather have another user review it, so there is a more widespread view. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * (no edits wars etc.)
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Here is a greater analysis of my findings:
 * I can find no original research, however the lead contains no references, but as there are no major citings, I am willing to view it as a minor.
 * All images were appropriately tagged.
 * There was a use of images, which helped improve the readability which was already good.
 * Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me.
 * All references used were independent and reliable.
 * There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)
 * The prose was very good.

General comments
This is a good article, and I am willing to pass this article on the basis that references in the lead will either not be seen as relevant or will be improved by the nominatin editor. If you feel this review was in error, feel free to take it to good article reassessment. Well done to the editors involved. Rt . 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The 61st Hurricane Meeting Request For Daniel
Although I'm not doubting whether or not the name was proposed, my question is whether or not the source in the article was to sum up the name "Daniel" and all associated storms or just this one. I ask this because no less than FOUR storms named "Daniel" came close to or affected Hawaii (1982's passed northward through the islands, 1994's dissipated just southeast of the Big Island, 2000's veered north of the islands but still triggered heavy surf, and this one's remnants caused damage to the islands). I'll guess that 1994's was the first possible in the request, because of the request to retire Emilia and Gilma (none of which neared the islands since 1994 while 2000s John did) as well as 2000's Fausto (the only storm with that name to come near the islands), which did nothing from what I know other than the reformation. Should we keep the source here, but mention it didn't specify whether or not it was this Daniel, switch it to Daniel's disamg. page, or add it to any other potential Daniel pages (such as a possible Hurricane Daniel (2000) should one ever be made)? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I was waiting for this to come up. OK. There was a previous link that said CPHC requested the retirement of Daniel because of both the 2006 storm and the 2000 storm. However, the link went dead, with no replacement by the WMO, nor any links in the Wayback machine. This link was for the 60th meeting, and this link has been prepared for the 62nd link. So, it was both, in a sense. At the very least, the name was still requested to be removed, as supported by the link, which is still relevant to this article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hurricane Daniel (2006). 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.ofcm.gov/ihc07/web-61st-IHC-Booklet.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Daniel (2006) → Hurricane Daniel – THIS Hurricane Daniel (no TS okay...) is much more |Hurricane_Daniel_(1982)|Hurricane_Daniel_(2012)|Hurricane_Daniel_(2000)|Hurricane_Daniel_(1978) prominent than any Hurricane Daniels i know of (even this one is very close to the retirement!, even it deals no damage). Even, this is only Hurricane Daniel to ever be not a redirect. So, i consider this to be a primary topic. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 09:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you look at Hurricane Daniel (the disambiguation page), you'll see that this instance of Daniel is not that much more remarkable than the others. I would advise you to refrain from creating further move discussions for storm articles because it seems clear that you need a better understanding of PRIMARYTOPIC as applied to storm articles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks :) --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose since no instances of Daniel appear to be particularly significant such that any of them can be termed the primary topic. Intensity alone is not enough, especially without significant impacts. ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Daniel (2006). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209180626/http://elists.pdc.org/pipermail/emops/2006-July.txt to http://elists.pdc.org/pipermail/emops/2006-July.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910161627/http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01006006curr.pdf to http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01006006curr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)