Talk:Tropical Storm Harold

Tropical Storm Harold is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by IrishSurfer21 (talk) at 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Atlantic tropical storm in August 2023

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability

Withdrawn by OP. --Nanchang17 ^(talk) 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The impact of the storm is not really hard, only gusts, winds, rainfall and your other usual effects but WAY weaker. Also, some people in TS Philippe's talk page mentioned that this page could be merged. Nanchang17 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think this storm, though short lived and weak, still should have an article since there was some wind, heavy rainfall, storm surge, and impact, though mostly minimal. It resulted in a school closing for several days due to damage so I think that can make the storm notable. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I do believe Harold was notable enough to have its own article, even if it wasn't a necessarily impactful storm. Poxy4 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I honestly didn't think an article was necessary here and felt like the creation would be another case of a storm needing an article just because it hit the United States. However, now that it is here and the info in seems to justify its inclusion, I don't really feel like it needs to be merged. ChessEric 21:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose i personally think this article is pretty large enough to deserve an article. the storm did bring some heavy rain and winds and issued multiple warnings throughout the areas

RainbowGalaxyPOC (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As author of this article. Easily passes WP:GNG and WPTC's notability guidelines. Information about its impacts are far too extensive to be merged into the main article. See my comments on the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season and Tropical Storm Philippe (2023) talk pages as well. Jay Tee⛈️ 12:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - still room to expand, while the season article is already full enough as it is. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the storm definitely had some impacts. The article is already big enough. 2600:4041:47C:400:C005:2896:839C:3151 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all, and this system while being short-lived, did cause damage to South Texas and areas outside of the warning area, so Harold's article should be kept for that reason. If it hadn't caused damage, then a merger would have been in order, but not here. tai (he/him) (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nevada fatality possibly as a result of this storm

@JayTee32: Should we add a Nevada fatality mentioned in this source to the article? It directly mentions Harold but the wording makes me think they might not be totally related, not even enough to call “indirect”. 108.170.65.170 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the flooding was due to Harold’s remnants I’d say it could definitely be added as an indirect death. You also don’t need to ask permission to add the source to the article- you can be WP:BOLD and add it yourself :) Jay Tee⛈️ 23:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Harold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IrishSurfer21 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to review this later or tomorrow. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It may take a bit long since I am going to be busy these next few weeks, but I’ll do my best to keep up with this review.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to help as well to keep up with the review. Jay Tee⛈️ 02:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Any word on the review? Jay Tee⛈️ 01:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows the MoS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Proper assortment of references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some problems with inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some problems of OR on the last sentence of MH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some minor problems with broadness.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of instability, most edits are for expansion.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Every image is okay and tagged with their particular license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.

Finally reviewing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Nothing wrong currently! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

Use the {{rp}} template on source 1, the ~~first~~, second, third iteration, and the fourth iteration mentions page 2, so put that.
Convection increased over the northern of the wave After northern, add 'part'.
Remove the first iteration of source 1, since the second iteration is also after the source.
You can include some text in source 9 to Preparations and impact, since the ref is a warning.
Can you add another reliable source with source 17? The source does not follow the sentence clearly, just being a map. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer Completed first three bullets. Couldn't find anything in Ref 9 that wasn't already in Prep/Impacts. Deleted Source 17 after realizing it contradicted the TCR. Jay Tee⛈️ 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Will check the rest later. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]