Talk:Hurricane Lili (1984)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Lili (1984) 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 Lili (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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
	The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

[edit] Todo

Just not enough information, it seems. Outside of meteorological information there are only 3 sentences of substances in the article. Jdorje 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite that fault I still put this at B because it has that Epsilion or Zeta look to it (the infomation that is). Storm05 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why does this storm have an article again? No damages or deaths? This should be merged... — jdorje (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(And yes, epsilon and zeta should be merged too.) — jdorje (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Because storms can be notable without causing damage. Hurricanehink 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but these aren't. Just being an off-season storm does not mean a storm needs an article. — jdorje (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Assessment

1. Broadness: Pass
2. NPOV: Pass
3. Well-written: Pass
4. Factually Accuratte: Pass
5. Images: Pass
6. Stability: Pass

All in all, a good article. Passed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitchazenia (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 April 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. I have made several minor corrections throughout the 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 also 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) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)