This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Depression Ten (2007) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tropical Depression Ten (2007) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. Hurricanehink reverted my edit, with the explination "same difference". What does that mean? Besides, a person reading this might think that the depression was strong enough to be called a hurricane. Obviously not, as the storm didn't even reach TS. However, an outsider might not know that. The article has proven its notability, but having see also links to notable and Florida hurricanes goes overboard. Surely the storm was too weak to be included more-than-breifly in either one of those articles? How about creating redirects to those articles from a name that does not suggest they have to be hurricanes and linking the see also to those, linking to other articles that don't have the name "hurricane" in them, or make the appearence of the link not have the word hurricane, eg. [[List of notable Atlantic hurricanes|List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones]] ? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Very well written and very well sourced. Good lede plus the prep and impact section gives very good details. B-class. ---
CWY2190
T
C
01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This article meets the existing Good Article criteria, and will be listed. I honestly can't find anything wrong with the article. Though it is short, it is well written, well sourced, and appears to be complete, covering the meteorological aspects of the storm as well as its impact and aftermath. All images check out, and I don't see any NPOV or stability issues. Wikipedia really is becoming a good source for information on storms and meteorology, for the most part,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
A GA for a storm that did no damage? Juliancolton 01:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Very well then, I was just a little suprised. Juliancolton 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we send this to FAC? Juliancolton ( talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I just wanted to check.
Juliancolton (
talk)
02:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be updated [1] Good kitty 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that this article even meets notability requirements, let alone obtain GA and FA status. Something has gone wrong with the process here. I don't think that this serves Wikipedia very well. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Depression Ten (2007). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Depression Ten (2007) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tropical Depression Ten (2007) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. Hurricanehink reverted my edit, with the explination "same difference". What does that mean? Besides, a person reading this might think that the depression was strong enough to be called a hurricane. Obviously not, as the storm didn't even reach TS. However, an outsider might not know that. The article has proven its notability, but having see also links to notable and Florida hurricanes goes overboard. Surely the storm was too weak to be included more-than-breifly in either one of those articles? How about creating redirects to those articles from a name that does not suggest they have to be hurricanes and linking the see also to those, linking to other articles that don't have the name "hurricane" in them, or make the appearence of the link not have the word hurricane, eg. [[List of notable Atlantic hurricanes|List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones]] ? Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Very well written and very well sourced. Good lede plus the prep and impact section gives very good details. B-class. ---
CWY2190
T
C
01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This article meets the existing Good Article criteria, and will be listed. I honestly can't find anything wrong with the article. Though it is short, it is well written, well sourced, and appears to be complete, covering the meteorological aspects of the storm as well as its impact and aftermath. All images check out, and I don't see any NPOV or stability issues. Wikipedia really is becoming a good source for information on storms and meteorology, for the most part,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
A GA for a storm that did no damage? Juliancolton 01:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Very well then, I was just a little suprised. Juliancolton 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we send this to FAC? Juliancolton ( talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I just wanted to check.
Juliancolton (
talk)
02:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be updated [1] Good kitty 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that this article even meets notability requirements, let alone obtain GA and FA status. Something has gone wrong with the process here. I don't think that this serves Wikipedia very well. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical Depression Ten (2007). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)