Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2002 Pacific typhoon season/archive1
2002 Pacific typhoon season edit
- Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Yellow Evan
After spending a lot of time and effort, I'm glad to report that this season now has GA's for every single storm worthy of having an article. This is the first attempt at a Good topic for the western Pacific, which is usually one of the most impacting basins on the planet. I think everything should be up to par! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Very comprehensive set of articles encompassing the 2002 PTS, meets all the criteria. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support —Andrewstalk 01:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support The articles are consistent in layout and presentation, I can't see any problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not convinced at all that Hurricane Huko deserves its own article. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I proposed it on the talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Huko has been merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I proposed it on the talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment the main GA is showing no fewer than 11 dead links right now. Don't think we should be promoting topics where the quality of the main article is questionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Considering how many links are in the main GA, how do 11 dead links (of which 4 are the same as another link, so really 7 dead links) make the quality questionable? I mean, I'll fix it, but I think that's a bit unfair of criticism, considering I worked on the article for several months. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was just a comment, not a "criticism" per se. I just felt that the lead article should be the best possible, so fixing the dead links (or better still, archiving the links) would just improve Wikipedia. If that's unfair, I guess you should sue me ;)! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could also see to the four dead links at Typhoon Chataan, the one at Rusa and the eight dead and sixteen "connection issue" links at Typhoon Pongsona, just the three featured articles in this proposed topic... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I'm just really proud of the article series, and I don't want anyone to think the quality is questionable! I hope no one thinks a few dead links suggested the topic isn't ready. For whatever reason, it's listing "Oanda" links as dead, although they're fine in the articles. They all should be good now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, not a problem, just wouldn't want the topic to be promoted only to be quickly demoted because one of the contributing articles is not up to the required standard. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I'm just really proud of the article series, and I don't want anyone to think the quality is questionable! I hope no one thinks a few dead links suggested the topic isn't ready. For whatever reason, it's listing "Oanda" links as dead, although they're fine in the articles. They all should be good now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing as promoted. The dead links appear to be dealt with; however, as I've stated elsewhere (perhaps at WT:GA in the past), dead links do not render a citation invalid, just not readily verifiable to all and sundry—placing them in the same realm as library books, newspaper article, et al, that can't always be seen from the comfort of one's computer. GRAPPLE X 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)