Talk:Tropical Storm Fabian (1991)

Assessment
Well this is one storm I didn't expect getting an article. Very nice, Start class for now. For B, add an external links section.Mitchazenia (8300+edits) 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * External links have been added. What's missing for a B? – Chacor 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close enough. May need some cleaning up, but I doubt there's much more info on this. --Core desat  14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

 * Well-written - Weak pass - Parts need to be re-written to flow better. For example, I think it should be mentioned that it became a tropical depression at a certain time before it is mentioned that it became a tropical storm. Also, (though this might be a discussion for elsewhere) should knots be the unit for wind speed? No other Atlantic articles do that. I don't think there should be as many, if any direct references to the NHC discussions. It's about the storm, not about how forecasters handled the storm (though that is important, too). Also, the lede should be expanded a bit.
 * Factually accurate - Big pass
 * Broad - Big pass
 * Non-POV - Pass
 * Stable - Pass
 * Images - Pass

I'll pass it, but I think what I mentioned needs to be addressed. Good job to those who worked on it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:33, 28 December 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) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA re-review
OK, so I'm looking at this article as part of my redoing 1991 AHS, and I notice it's sort of lackluster. There isn't a single mention of impact, outside of random rainfall/wind/pressure reports (AKA anything other than met. details). Even Google confirms the storm didn't do much of anything, describing it "wet and puny" (don't even say it). IDK what to do about it. It's not really worthy of GA status, and yet I don't think there's enough real content for it to become/remain a GA. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be dislted, and merged. 70.189.176.107 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear here, I'm getting tired of this crap. At first I was OK with it but now it's gone overboard. You have got to stop this merging process and just leave quality articles alone, regardless of whether or not you deem them worthy of existing. Though it may seem productive to you, the overall removal of material more destructive as it removes sound material that no one previously had issues with. Many people probably could care less whether or not this article exists; however, it's (as I've said before) the removal of higher quality work that bothers me. Sure, go ahead and merge a poorly written article of a similar storm but leave the well-written ones alone. Considerable time and effort was put into making these pieces and to just blindly remove them just wastes everyone's time, especially for the person who wrote it.
 * I think I can speak for others who have article written by them merged (though I've willing let this happen for articles I've written and now regret it): each of these articles provided a useful experience for expanding our ability to write and improve the coverage of Wikipedia at the same time. Personally, I used storms of this nature (minimal impact and/or short lived) to keep my writing going, allowing for larger projects to take place. However, with the trend to remove these types of articles, my contributions to WPTC have markedly decreased.
 * A common argument used for not having these articles is "how are they useful?" followed by "the information just as easily be relayed in a single paragraph in the season article. In regards to that, there is no harm either way; however, there is a benefit of having the articles on individual storms: more detailed, non-generalized (in order to skim over periods of time) information allowing for the most accurate summary of a given storm. As stated by Titoxd several times, the merger of articles is a "destructive process [and] no new content is created." Sure there are some storms that truly don't need articles but the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles can support a reasonably sized article (>8kb) and be useful for those looking into the forgotten storms.
 * Lastly, this effort to merge articles appears to be aimed at bringing the focus to the "bigger storms" but what it seems to have done is drive potential editors away by not giving them an easy starting point that doesn't have an overwhelming amount of information or require multi-language searches. By dis-interesting potential project members we prevent having the ability to vastly improve all WPTC articles as many will see the project as too strict to deal with (which is something I'm beginning to become frustrated with). The goal of some members has become to merge articles they see as useless rather than create new content that could prove useful.
 * I've just about worn myself out ranting here so I'll stop for now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What CB said. This merging process is, for lack of a better word, based on groundless wish-thinking. No amount of merging will cause editors to work on "more important articles"—it will just drive the editors away altogether. Whether you merge this article or not will not make me more likely to work on Hurricane Camille; in fact, it makes me less likely to do so, since the editing atmosphere becomes toxic.
 * Whether the article is delisted from GA is a different matter, but merging is pointless, and I oppose it. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist as it doesn't seem to meet the qualities of a GA, but merging it seems pointless at this point (no pun intended). ★ Auree  talk 03:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Before this turns into an anti-mergist rant, I am asking, how can we turn this article (which is currently rather lackluster) into something that can benefit the encyclopedia? Right now, I feel there is a lot of fluff. For example:
 * "Because Fabian was forecast to remain a minimal tropical storm, officials in the Florida Keys did not open any storm shelters and schools remained opened."

That is merely indicating something didn't happen. Since when was encyclopediac information including stuff that did not happen? Similarly, there are mentions to the barometric pressure in Cuba. In my opinion, that is fairly useless, since it is just... there. There is no context. In my opinion, if someone saw that "the Isle of Youth reported a barometric pressure of 1004.9 millibars", I wouldn't blame them if they were confused why that piece of info was there. In addition, the article goes into large detail about rainfall amounts, but it doesn't say anything beyond that (what did the rainfall do). I believe the article currently fails in adequately explaining what the storm did and its context in history. So it was a tropical storm. There are lots of unnamed/unclassified storms that do more. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is encyclopedic to point out that something that usually happens didn't happen, as long as there is an explanation given, in this case. I disagree with the 1004.9 mb and precipitation amount comments as well, since they provides information on the storm's strength over a land area. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But the article doesn't make any such claim whether it's common or not for shelters in south Florida. Remember, it was only a TS for 36 hours before affecting Florida. It isn't surprising that no shelters were opened. As for the pressure, the 1004.9 means nothing without providing some context. If pressures were low in the region, that piece of data would be useless (and same with the Cuban ones). As for the rainfall, it indicates precipitation in a few random towns, and then goes nowhere with it. What happened in Antonio Maceo and the others? Their totals were less than the country's total, so why mention them? If it's an argument of the data not harming the article, then what about in the US? We could have entire articles on Precipitation totals from Tropical Storm Claudette (2009). Are you suggesting that sort of article be created? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not object for this article to be merged, since this article is borderline WP:N. I agree with Tito, we should mention the peak pressure. We should mention peak rainfall totals in each state, but mentioning every single rainfall location is pointless. Perhaps this matter should be discussed on the project talk page? YE   Tropical  Cyclone 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge
I believe this article should be merged. The impact section basically states "it produced xxx inches of rain here and xxx there". There isn't any real damage.  HF 25  15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion. Thank you. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)