Talk:Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)

Overall performance

This is one of my better efforts. I've been working on this article for months. Can anyone work with me and add more information for the preparations and impacts sections and improve the article for GA nomination? Thanks! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More impact would be good. Have you checked through newspapers? If this is all of the information available, then I would recommend merging preparations with impact. I might be able to help out later on, if you want. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate help. I've searched through articles but I couldn't find considerable information on preparations and impact. I want to find more information and improve the writing prose and style and bring this article to GA status. Can you offer help? Thanks! In addition, I'm testing merging preparations and impact in my sandbox. Is the appearance and prose improved when the preparations and impact sections are merged? Thanks for input! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be able to help in the future, but not right now. My biggest question is whether there is any more impact. If there is, then the preps and impact should remain separate. If not (which I consider unlikely but possible), then merging would be alright. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There generally should not be references in the lead.
   • You use the phrases "Shortly afterward" and "Shortly after" quite a few times in the Storm history section. Could the wording be varied, to prevent this repetition?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are just a couple of minor prose/MOS issues that are preventing this article from being promoted to GA status, so I am putting the review on hold to allow you time to deal with these concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the SH, so that should be better now. About the footnote in the lead, there's nothing wrong with referencing the section. Information in the lead that's not in the article is discouraged, but a reference is fine. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose... I don't really like it, but personal preference, I guess :) Everything else looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per consensus for merge at AfD Noah, AA^Talk 23:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

System had minimal impacts, failing WP:GNG, which immediately disqualifies it ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close, there's already an ongoing AfD that looks like it's heading for a merge, if it ends that way it'll be automatically delisted so this isn't necessary. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok ''Flux55'' (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.