Talk:Tropical Depression Five-E (2008)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mattisse in topic GA Review
 | Tropical Depression Five-E (2008) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Todo edit
Finish the MH! --Anhamirak 23:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Cut down on the info about the wave. Remember, the wave was not the same as the tropical cyclone, it just spawned it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. But that's about half the article. Potapych (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I removed three sentences that were a bit excessive in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Five-E (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I made a few copy edits which you are free to revert if I changed the meaning. Everything looks good. There are just a few issues.
- Comments
-
- There are some dead links.
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/ep05/ep052008.public.a.003.shtml?
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/ep05/ep052008.public.a.004.shtml?
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/ep05/ep052008.public.a.006.shtml?
- What is "Hill of Ortega, Cabbage" as I have never heard of it?
Everything else looks good. Nicely written!
—Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Hill of Ortega, Cabbage" was lost in translation. I also fixed those dead links. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/ep05/ep052008.public.a.006.shtml? which is still there. Glad you resolved the Cabbage thing!
—Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks hink, I got the last reference then :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Well written
b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
- a (prose): Well written
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers major aspects
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: Netrual
- Fair representation without bias: Netrual
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail: Pass
Congratulations. Good work!