Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2003)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTropical Depression Nine (2003) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 24, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 7, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Assessment[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I got the typos (I think), and fixed some of the grammar things. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, because this one actually DID enough to have enough info. – Chacor 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Assessment[edit]

  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)[reply]

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

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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 2006. 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) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tropical Depression Nine (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

This storm caused no deaths, and only a minimal amount of damage. It's Met history is neither exciting or long (it was only a TD). All of the information can fit within the season article. Even though it's a good article, IMO, TD Nine doesn't deserve an article for itself. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As the author, it’s fine by me. I was excited when I first wrote it writing the first article for a tropical depression, and having it part of a 2003 AHS topic. You are right though, there isn’t much to discuss with the storm; it was short-lived and didn’t do that much. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not notable. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Short lived non-noteworthy cyclone. Drdpw (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This storm is a failure and didn't do much. SMB99thx my edits 07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not particularly long or noteworthy and a summary can be easily fitted into the season article. JavaHurricane 05:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment alr, that's enough consensus for a merge. Waiting for an uninvolved editor to merge. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like me? Merging right now. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Depression_Nine_(2003)&oldid=1137268645"