Talk:Hurricane Debby (1988)

Merge anyone?
This article lacks substance. If no new info can be found, I propose merging it with the main article. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 01:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Supportive of the merge. I can't seem to find any other information on it myself. CrazyC83 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Shutters uncontrobably at the writing). Ugh, big support for the merge. Hurricanehink 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless it can be improved greatly, it should be merged. Jdorje 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Doubt it. There's not much info on this as it is, and the impact was minimal. Hurricanehink 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I merged it almost exactly as it was from the article. Hope no one was opposed. Hurricanehink 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo
Longer lede. Remove the unnecessary reference to the 1955 AHS there, as well. Copyedit/rewrite the storm history. For example, using the first sentence, the reference provided states the wave did not form offshore. Likely, it formed over Africa, and according to the ref it moved off the coast of Africa. The whole reason for wikilinking dates is for user preferences, so 15th of August is a very bad idea. Tropical wave should be wikilinked, as well. The storm history probably does not need to be split up by each storm, as well. The writing is rather poor, and should be more professional (some convection came together, was declared a 1.5 on the Dvorak Scale, and development increased, which called little change in strength, the possibility ... was possible, etc.). Strike probabilities aren't needed. Are there any more actual preparations? The impact needs more organization. It just goes from thought to thought, with little structure. More detailed damage would be nice. Additionally, is there any aftermath? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainfall
Its rainfall image and rainfall page have been completed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete sentences
I think if you sort some information out into more complete sentences the article will look and read better. There are too many "fragment-like" statements in the article. Also the bit about the Dvorak information seems to be a bit overboard on information that leads virtually no where especially since there is no Dvorak article. Altarboy420 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I fixed the link about the Dvorak, but it's in need of some more work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made minor/mild changes to some grammatical elements of the article. I hope the original authors won't be offended. Altarboy420 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the beauty of this site. It's designed so anyone can edit it and improve on the original version. Keep up the good work, and feel free to edit as much as you see fit. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In most of the articles on here, the original editors shouldn't be offended, as long as you add information which is sourced with inline references of some sort. Keep in mind there isn't supposed to be the idea of ownership with any of these articles.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)