Talk:Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) 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.

January 9, 2008

Good article nominee

Listed

	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.

[edit] Previous article discussion

To whoever put the merge proposel: I don't think it needs it. It is fine by itself, and I know it needs work, but i say keep it seperate. Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this article does not need to be kept, the storm name was not retired and it did not make landfall. If you feel that you can make this article good enough to be on its own i suggest you make a sandbox for it. Then when its reached a high enough quality post a message on the WPTC talk page to be checked over. Seddon69 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. Just out of curiousity, what would it be rated now? Juliancolton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A have seen many unimportant storms and depressions articles that have moved to GA...for example...Tropical Storm Lee (2005). What am I doing wrong?Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Julian: Currently, its a stub. It needs major expansion and grammar cleanup as well. It needs to be rewritten.^Mitch32^contribs 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If i rewrote it to at least a start class, would it be worth keeping? Juliancolton (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what needs doing:

be completely wikified
the dates need to be like this October 8
the start needs to be rewritten. For a small storm like this there is no need for detail about formation or data for strength.
There is no real need for times.
all distances need to be in miles with a km conversion. The same for speed.
You need to rewrite this whole article in your own words if possible.
remove the damage section in the infobox or put none

thats it so far Seddon69 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Any good site where i could get good info? Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] this would be a good place, plus the source you used for the previous edit which for some reason you reverted. Seddon69 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that source is where i got the information i slready have. How do I get to the monthly weather review? Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:

Pass/Fail: