Talk:Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)

Tropical Storm Gilma (2006) 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
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
April 12, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
March 22, 2009	Articles for deletion	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 27, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Tropical Storm Gilma* was, in terms of wind speed, the weakest named storm of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season?*
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours.

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):
An image for this storm may not be necessary but it wouldn't hurt to have one
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Another well written article Julian. Other than an image (if possible), the article passes. If you can't find a useful one, it wont really do much since the storm was short lived. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. As the article is very short, there isn't much room for another picture, without unnecessary whitespace. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on another GA then :) Keep up the good work. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm delisting this article from GA status as I feel it doesn't meet notability requirements and has been largely merged with its parent article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic