![]() | Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) is part of the 2002 Pacific typhoon 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You need more than one source, and you need to do some more summarizing on your own. Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There's only two paragraphs of impact. The season article is rather short, as well. Should this one be merged? Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Already it's much better, and a merge is no longer needed. You're doing a good job so far, keep it up. Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark Arsten ( talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Lead
Meteorological history
Preparations, impact, and aftermath
References
Hi. I'm thinking about initiating a GAR on this article. There is no indication the references were checked for plagiarism, and the references were not verifiable. I am specifically talking about citations where there the format is "Title." Agency. Date. Accessdate is not a relevant field as there is no url to access. (There is no page number, no location, no author.) The sources are available outside Lexis Nexis, so that is no excuse to not link to them. As these articles appear to persistently be passed with out full citations, I am considering going back over older articles by the nominator and putting up all articles that lack full citations where the reviewer has not indicated a references check has been these references for plagiarism and factually accuracy. -- LauraHale ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) is part of the 2002 Pacific typhoon 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You need more than one source, and you need to do some more summarizing on your own. Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There's only two paragraphs of impact. The season article is rather short, as well. Should this one be merged? Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Already it's much better, and a merge is no longer needed. You're doing a good job so far, keep it up. Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark Arsten ( talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Lead
Meteorological history
Preparations, impact, and aftermath
References
Hi. I'm thinking about initiating a GAR on this article. There is no indication the references were checked for plagiarism, and the references were not verifiable. I am specifically talking about citations where there the format is "Title." Agency. Date. Accessdate is not a relevant field as there is no url to access. (There is no page number, no location, no author.) The sources are available outside Lexis Nexis, so that is no excuse to not link to them. As these articles appear to persistently be passed with out full citations, I am considering going back over older articles by the nominator and putting up all articles that lack full citations where the reviewer has not indicated a references check has been these references for plagiarism and factually accuracy. -- LauraHale ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)