Talk:Hurricane Nicole (1998)

Assessment
Very good article. Good job with all the details and the very detailed analysis on the storm, considering information can be hard to find. CrazyC83 03:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Assessment

 * 1) NPOV:Pass
 * 2) Broadness:Pass
 * 3) Factually Accurate: Pass
 * 4) Well written: Pass
 * 5) Images: 2 is awfully low, but pass
 * 6) Stability: Easy pass.

Well well. Nice job Hink for a storm i've tried doing.Congrats. Mitchazenia (7900+edits) 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Two images is low? Counting the track map, there's three, and that's a good amount. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge
- redirected the article this morning. As the author of the article, I'm fine with this move, but we technically need to have a discussion (as it's part of a good topic). When the article was made, we focused more on individual storms instead of the season articles, so more sub-articles existed when the information would've fit suitably in the season article. As Nicole wasn't that meteorologically extraordinary of a storm, I agree with the move to redirect the article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've seen merges without discussions before, and this is actually my first time merging an article. Thanks for letting me know :P Jdcomix (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob, it wasn't a very controversial merge, either. Sometimes boldness is a good thing. It gets the ball moving, instead of hiding behind questions for fear of taking a firm action. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)