Talk:Hurricane Lisa (2004)

GA Review
The storm history is excessively long. It should be summarized a bit more. Are there any non-NHC links? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Summarized a bit but otherwise I lose details from the long track. No other links that didn't have information already included. CrazyC83 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can still have details for the long track. However, six paragraphs is a bit overboard. Try merging sentences, eliminate unnecessary details, and I would aim for three or four paragraphs. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I never really thought about that and need to think more, I withdraw the nomination. CrazyC83 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Record?
That record is borderline original research, given how it is cited to HURDAT. I did a quick search, and I couldn't find any good, reliable sources backing that claim up. I'm not so sure it should be there, since for someone to verify it, they'd basically have to look through all of HURDAT. IMO, that sort of information should not be in Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is the epitome of OR, so yeah, I'd support either removing it completely or making it more vague (ie. "an unprecedented length of time between x and y") Juliancolton (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it. The lede already says it took two weeks, and the met. history said "finally" reaching hurricane status. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge
The storm did nothing. It killed no people, caused no damage. It didn't even have an interesting meteorological history. It's not notable enough for its own article. Merge? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and support merging this article.--12george1 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)