Talk:Hurricane Inga/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The issue I see in this article is reference-related. References 2 through 14 do not go to the source of the information used within the article, they only direct the user to the main storm wallet archive page. Fix these reference links, and I'll pass the article. Everything else appears good.
Reviewer: Thegreatdr (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, forgot about that!
Doing... –Juliancolton | Talk 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to find the specific advisory links actually. The relevant storm wallet seems more-or-less empty. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a significant problem. The article does need to be adequately sourced. If the original references are no longer on the NHC website, substitute references are needed. I'm not going to quick fail the article...there are four more days left within the review period to fix this referencing problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to failing this for now, until I figure out how to source it adequately. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's still time. I know how long I end up waiting for articles to be reviewed for GA, and wouldn't want you to needlessly have to go through it again. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ive found them [1] - The number had slipped from 11 to 06Jason Rees (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weird. But those aren't the public advisories, rather the tropical discussions. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was under the impression it was the disscussions you were after but o well Public ones are here as wellJason Rees (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weird. But those aren't the public advisories, rather the tropical discussions. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ive found them [1] - The number had slipped from 11 to 06Jason Rees (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's still time. I know how long I end up waiting for articles to be reviewed for GA, and wouldn't want you to needlessly have to go through it again. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to failing this for now, until I figure out how to source it adequately. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a significant problem. The article does need to be adequately sourced. If the original references are no longer on the NHC website, substitute references are needed. I'm not going to quick fail the article...there are four more days left within the review period to fix this referencing problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to find the specific advisory links actually. The relevant storm wallet seems more-or-less empty. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! :) Done now. Thanks to everyone for their help and patience. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I have passed its GAN. Congratulations to all involved. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
