Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTropical Storm Cristobal (2002) 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
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 26, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2012Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 9, 2020Articles for deletionKept
January 22, 2024Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
August 28, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Previous article discussion

[edit]

To whoever put the merge proposel: I don't think it needs it. It is fine by itself, and I know it needs work, but i say keep it seperate. Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this article does not need to be kept, the storm name was not retired and it did not make landfall. If you feel that you can make this article good enough to be on its own i suggest you make a sandbox for it. Then when its reached a high enough quality post a message on the WPTC talk page to be checked over. Seddon69 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that. Just out of curiousity, what would it be rated now? Juliancolton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A have seen many unimportant storms and depressions articles that have moved to GA...for example...Tropical Storm Lee (2005). What am I doing wrong?Juliancolton (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian: Currently, its a stub. It needs major expansion and grammar cleanup as well. It needs to be rewritten.Mitch32contribs 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i rewrote it to at least a start class, would it be worth keeping? Juliancolton (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what needs doing:

  • be completely wikified
  • the dates need to be like this October 8
  • the start needs to be rewritten. For a small storm like this there is no need for detail about formation or data for strength.
  • There is no real need for times.
  • all distances need to be in miles with a km conversion. The same for speed.
  • You need to rewrite this whole article in your own words if possible.
  • remove the damage section in the infobox or put none

thats it so far Seddon69 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any good site where i could get good info? Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this would be a good place, plus the source you used for the previous edit which for some reason you reverted. Seddon69 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that source is where i got the information i slready have. How do I get to the monthly weather review? Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  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:

A well written article. Congrats. ---CWY2190TC 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

I was just thinking about this one. The storm didn't cause any impact as a tropical cyclone, and what little it did have was pretty minimal. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough content to justify the article's existence as a stand-alone entry I think. I would hold off on this one for now. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Cristobal_(2002)&oldid=1243073654"