Tropical Storm Fran (1984) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

I put it as a mid because it killed 31 in the Cape Verde, a high number for that island chain. — Iune(talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the storm is notable, but there's very little content in here. Worst off, there are no sources outside of the TCR. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a vote. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would we merge to? Is it long enough not to be considered a stub? Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 01:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's rather stubby. It'd be merged to the season article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, we can merge it into the season article. It would provide a little bit more information that there is now. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 01:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's a bad article. Just that it's extremely stubby. Honestly, I've tried finding enough info for this storm, but there isn't much out there. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, at least the information will be retained in the season article. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 01:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Fran (1984)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm working on the review now, but because of practical limitations, I mostly do reviews on paper and then transcribe my (ridiculously messy) notes. So don't worry, there will be a review, it will just probably be posted over the weekend. Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've typed up all of my comments below, organized by section. Obviously, these are all just suggestions, so I won't be offended if you disagree/want to discuss further. Thanks for your patience! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the infobox need citations?
• Insert "formed" into "Fran <formed> from a tropical wave near Cape Verde on September 15."
• Change "Forming as a tropical depression" to "It began as a tropical depression".
• Change "it gradually strengthened" to "and gradually strengthened".
• Combine the two sentences beginning with "Late on September 16". I would suggest something like "Late on September 16, the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Fran and shortly thereafter, brushed Cape Verde and quickly moved out to sea."
• Change "began to weaken back" to "weakened".
• Change "while well west" to "well west".
• I looked at the map and thought it was east of the Lesser Antilles when it dissipated. Or I might be crazy. Could you double-check?
• Change "Due to flooding, at least 1,094 houses were severely damaged" to "At least 1,094 houses were severely damaged due to flooding".
• Add "also" after "significant damage".
• Change "which was still in need" to "which were still in need".
• Combine the two sentences beginning "The hydraulic infrastructure was destroyed"

Why? That would be combining the hydraulics and agriculture, which have no correlation in this case.--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just figured they had something to do with each other. It's fine then. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that it caused $1.84 million in damage is inconsistent; you said $1 million in damage to hydraulic infrastructure and $1.84 million to agriculture.
• Change "at least 29 fatalities, though other sources claim 31 or 32 deaths" to "between 29 and 32 deaths". "between 29 and 32 fatalities" would be OK too.

Everything for the lead is fixed, except for the issue I commented on--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it numbered as a tropical depression?

Because the advisories and discussions are inaccessible, there is no way to know for sure if it was numbered as a tropical depression.--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove "intensity" in "satellite intensity estimates".
• Change "By then, the storm had begun a track to the northwest, and Fran passed near the southernmost islands of Cape Verde." to "By then, the storm had begun a track to the northwest; Fran then passed near the southernmost islands of Cape Verde."
• Remove "its" in "it maintained its maximum winds".
• The phrase "during which Fran turned to the west and later to the west-southwest" is awkward.
• Change "this caused weakening" to "this caused it to weaken" for parallelism.
• Remove "it" in "12 hours later it dissipated"
• Change "became unidentifiable" to "were unidentifiable".
• Is the whole meteorological history cited from sources 1 and 2? If so, that's a concern; are there any other sources you can hunt down? I know it's a bit of an older storm, so that may be harder. I'm not sure.

• Change "Light winds were reported in Cape Verde, with weather stations recording winds of 35 mph" to "Light winds were reported in Cape Verde; weather stations recorded winds of 35 mph".
• The citations in this section seem really thin overall.
• Is there a better phrasing for "dropped torrential rainfall"?
• Change "which caused" to "causing".
• Add "and" before "Santiago".
• Change "totaling to" to "which totaled".
• Rewrite "Significant damage to roads also occurred and was still requiring repairs as late as January 1985." I would suggest something like "Fran also caused significant damage to roads, which still required repairs as late as January 1985."
• Add "and" before "Maio".
• Change "while other sources claim there were as many as 32 fatalities" to "though some sources claim as many as 32 fatalities".
• You need more than one source for the other fatality numbers.
• Remove "regardless" and add "therefore" in "Fran is <therefore> the deadliest". Also change "cyclones" to "cyclone".
• I have the same problem with the cited $1.84 million statistic here as earlier.
• I think the last sentence would be better as something like "The storm did not impact any other countries."
• Decapitalize "Kerosene".
• Add "the" before "repair of 1,094 houses".
• The sentence "By January 1985, it was announced that significant progress with relief assistance occurred" needs to be rewritten in the active voice.
• Change "totaled to" to "totaled".
• Remove the comma after "United States".

In general, I'm a little concerned that this article only has 4 sources. Is there anything else you can dig up? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok now I have fixed almost everything, with a few exceptions. It is #7 and 8 from the Meteorological history I have not done, because it would make it harder to read. For #16 of the Impacts, can you give me an example of how to re-write that sentence? Also, about the references, there is nothing more I could dig up about this storm, after searching for hours on end. For the fatalities, I don't really think more than one reference should be required, since none of the sources give the same figure.--12george1 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MH stuff is fine, no worries. Also, with the references, if they don't exist, you can't be expected to cite them! For #16, I would suggest something like "In January 1985, the government of Cape Verde announced that they had made significant progress with relief assistance." Does that help? Other than that sentence, I'm happy with the article and am ready to promote once it's fixed. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed that sentence you just mentioned.--12george1 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'm promoting it now. Congratulations! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]