Talk:Hurricane Able (1951)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Able (1951) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Hurricane Able (1951) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 18, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Up for DYK

Very good job; B-class. I've put it up for DYK. —Cuiviénen 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Saw a couple of minor errors in syntax, one I think in the last section. Perhaps stub those two red links. Great article. I am promoting it. A mcmurray 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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 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) 07:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)