Talk:Hurricane John (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Hurricane John (2006) has been listed as a good article 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 review.

[edit] GA nomination

Strongly support it. I think it is almost, if not, up to A-class. CrazyC83 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to be asking for a GA review (or I may delist it). It was never considered by someone outside the project, which is one of the points of GAC. Other than that, the article is not A-class material. It needs cleanup, and it's a very recent event. A-class is reserved for those articles that would be ready for a FAC run, and this article is not ready for that. Wait for the TCR. --Coredesat talk! 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What? It looks great! Who says we have to wait for the TCR? There is plenty of information and a beyond adequate number of references here. bob rulz 06:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

General consensus agrees that we shouldn't have someone within the project passing articles about the project (failing is a different thing, if someone within the project ffails it then you know it probably has to be worked on). It smacks of corruption. – Ch acor 06:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current climate at WP:GA is suggesting users with expertise on a subject to assess it, even if it means that a WikiProject is assessing its own GAs. This is probably better directed at Wikipedia talk:Good articles instead of here, though. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean overall. I meant within WPTC. Earlier today I believe there was a general consensus on IRC that it shouldn't be done as such. – Ch acor 06:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was somewhat of a consensus that it shouldn't have been promoted in the way it was. Content aside, John was too recent, and there could be further information that comes in before the TCR comes out. From what I've seen, GAs need to be somewhat stable. --Coredesat talk! 06:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First 24 or so refs

...Are broken. This is a serious problem, as that's where much of the information on this hurricane comes from. Does anyone know where those references might be archived somewhere? Although half of the article is still a Good Article, 1/2 of a Good Article won't cut it :/. Homestarmy 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The NHC recently updated their archives; the links can be fixed easily. I'll get right on it. – Ch acor 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. – Ch acor 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, quick work. Well, now it's all of a Good Article heh. Homestarmy 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)