Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

Too soon?
It's too soon to start turning Hurricane Dean (2007) into a series; as it hasn't even dissipated yet, and we don't know how significant a storm it will be in areas it has yet to affect. I recommend merging this. --Core desat 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this. The storm history hasn't been spectacular so far, and it could be easily contained within the main article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt that the main article was getting a little unwieldy. When it was over 62 kb (and growing) I thought that, whether the name is retired or not, the article ought to be divided up to make it more readable as per the WP:Article size recommendation. Splitting out the meteorological history seemed like one of the most logical steps to take. If you would rather not link here from Hurricane Dean (2007) then by all means remove the link, but please don't delete this page. Just move it back to my sandbox so that I can continue to work on it - for my personal edification if nothing more.  Plasticup  T / C  23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't that bad. 62 kb for a current article is not a problem, and the storm history is only a few kb of that. Katrina was well over 100 kb, and that was even with several sub-articles. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * 1) Broadness: Pass
 * 2) Fact.Accuracy: Pass
 * 3) Neutral POV:Pass
 * 4) Images: Pass
 * 5) Well written: Pass
 * 6) Stable: Extreme Pass

Well done job, Plasticup and all other users who worked on it. Passed. Mit ch contribs 19:47, 24 August 2007 (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 2007. 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) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean. 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.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42056

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 16:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

 * Duplicate links
 * Needs alt text
 * Decent amount of academic literature written about meteorological issues for Dean.

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN per the above. Noah Talk 14:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * CCI Check not done. Noah Talk 14:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like the academic literature that you found in 2021 has not been incorporated yet. Are you interested in bringing this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)