Hurricane Keith has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Hurricane Keith is part of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More impact. Jdorje 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Titoxd found tons of info. B-class? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What now? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I found good damage photos at http://pso.louisville.edu/capstBeli.html, they are copyrighted...i think. There is a contact list, but I'm too busy to email them. Can someone else do it, or else I'll do it later. They're worthwhile :) íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 23:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
My only problem: "The name Kirk has yet to be used." That sounds a lot like POV to me. Otherwise, pass.
Mitch
azenia
(7900+edits) 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't ready for FAC. The storm history section is barely longer than the abbreviated storm history in the lede, and there is little to speak of in the preparations section. The whole article needs a thorough copyedit and the lede probably needs to be rewritten. -- Core desat 00:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While this was certainly an important storm, I believe the article has too many problems to satisfy today's GA criteria. The article was passed in 2006, and since then the GA standards have risen considerably. To highlight the major problems, I will reassess the article against the criteria below. Auree ★ ★ 09:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I believe the MH should be good for now. I rewrote it and expanded it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
To help speed up the process, I will list some sources that could prove beneficial to the article below:
Large portions of the impact section are cited by reference 2; however, this reference does not support majority of the information for Belize. Furthermore, what little is supported by the source is very closely paraphrased, nearing copyvio grounds. These are critical issues and show that the way the article is sourced is of poor quality. A thorough run-through of the citations is required, which may slow the progress of this review. Auree ★ ★ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there was nothing else in ReliefWeb (and damage wasn't particularly extreme in Mexico), I don't believe there is any additional aftermath. That being the case, can this GA review be closed? It's been open for five months. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I'll take over this review. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Any more comments? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Looking at the article's history ( here), this article has been expanded considerable since this review was opened by Aureeback on 25 May 2013. In the light of recent minor changes to the article, I'm closing this review with a "keep" status. As such, the article keeps its GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to thank those editors who have helped improve this article, Well Done. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Keith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Format the remaining refs correctly, and ship off to FAC. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Keith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Keith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Keith has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Hurricane Keith is part of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More impact. Jdorje 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Titoxd found tons of info. B-class? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What now? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I found good damage photos at http://pso.louisville.edu/capstBeli.html, they are copyrighted...i think. There is a contact list, but I'm too busy to email them. Can someone else do it, or else I'll do it later. They're worthwhile :) íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 23:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
My only problem: "The name Kirk has yet to be used." That sounds a lot like POV to me. Otherwise, pass.
Mitch
azenia
(7900+edits) 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't ready for FAC. The storm history section is barely longer than the abbreviated storm history in the lede, and there is little to speak of in the preparations section. The whole article needs a thorough copyedit and the lede probably needs to be rewritten. -- Core desat 00:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While this was certainly an important storm, I believe the article has too many problems to satisfy today's GA criteria. The article was passed in 2006, and since then the GA standards have risen considerably. To highlight the major problems, I will reassess the article against the criteria below. Auree ★ ★ 09:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I believe the MH should be good for now. I rewrote it and expanded it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
To help speed up the process, I will list some sources that could prove beneficial to the article below:
Large portions of the impact section are cited by reference 2; however, this reference does not support majority of the information for Belize. Furthermore, what little is supported by the source is very closely paraphrased, nearing copyvio grounds. These are critical issues and show that the way the article is sourced is of poor quality. A thorough run-through of the citations is required, which may slow the progress of this review. Auree ★ ★ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there was nothing else in ReliefWeb (and damage wasn't particularly extreme in Mexico), I don't believe there is any additional aftermath. That being the case, can this GA review be closed? It's been open for five months. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I'll take over this review. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Any more comments? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
...stopping for now. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Looking at the article's history ( here), this article has been expanded considerable since this review was opened by Aureeback on 25 May 2013. In the light of recent minor changes to the article, I'm closing this review with a "keep" status. As such, the article keeps its GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to thank those editors who have helped improve this article, Well Done. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Keith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Format the remaining refs correctly, and ship off to FAC. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Keith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Keith. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)