Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2003)

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.

Tropical Depression Nine (2003) 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] Assessment

It's absolutely incredible that you were able to write such a detailed article on a depression that lasted for only one day. This article has more information than Tropical Storm Lee (2005), which is a GA. Good sourcing and structure, but the article needs some copyediting to remove typos. Very high start for now, it can be B-class with a good copyedit. --Coredesat 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cough, Tito? :D Yea, sorry about the typos, I was using a school computer which is very prone to doubling or omitting letters. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the typos (I think), and fixed some of the grammar things. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I got a question. Why does TD9 have an article? + wouldn't it be fair if we had one for all, because of this predicament?Mitchazenia V4.0 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because this one actually DID enough to have enough info. – Chacor 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It think that the GA promotion has taken so long because it is a new article written by one sole editor, which makes it difficult for people who know nothing about the subject to validate whether it adheres to NPOV. What do you think about asking someone from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones to have a look at it?

Fred-Chess 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Assessment

1. Well Written: Nice work. Pass
2. Factually Acurrate: 27 refs, Nice. Pass
3. NPOV: Pass
4. Images: Needs more, but Pass for now.
5. Stability: Pass
6. Broad: Pass

Well done, hink, I guess it passes for now, just fix the image problem.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I added another image. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, 27 refs does not necessarily mean factually accurate. Please be careful when reviewing future GA nominees. – Chacor 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)