Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This information was split off from tropical cyclone rainfall climatology in order to help out with its length. There also appeared to be enough information to create a separate article with this name. Thegreatdr 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A few things I found, by quickly doing a review of the article:
Overall, I like it - it is coming very well. Maybe the book links can be modified slightly to use {{ cite book}} and the footnote system, or we could try something new and use the Harvard referencing system instead. (It is seldom used because it is more difficult to set up.) Either way, if those things above are addressed, it should get GA status easily. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We had complete overlap between tropical cyclone rainfall climatology and this article, so I shortened the section relating to TC rainfall climatology. In my view, some climatological aspects do need to be included in this article. Thegreatdr 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ready to do a GA review of this article yet, but one thing that caught my eye is that the lead is inadequate. The big issue is that the lead should contain the title of the article in bold preferably at or near the beginning, for example:
Just a suggestion. Word it how you like, but the lead needs a "lead sentance" containing the title of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem that the issues above have been adequately addressed. The lead is too short for the subject (could be at least two grafs), the references are still mixed, there are some things that should be cited but aren't, and there are a few places where the prose could be ironed out. I will go into specifics about this later.
This has been on GAC long enough and a decision has to be made. Certainly it has the potential once this issues are fixed. Daniel Case 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting SCORES IN KEY AREAS | |||||
Legality | A | A | A | A | |
Neutrality | A | A | A | A | |
Writing | A | A | A | A | |
Sources | B | B | B | ||
Citations | B | B | B | ||
05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
The writing is good. The pictures are all free and proper for the article. However, there are not many sources eventhough there are an average amount of references, which means the article is a bit small, and that is especially the case for the lead. The article is obviously good, but there are formatting WP:MoS issues to address as well as size issues in terms of lead length (should have more paragraphs) and the throughness of citations. The work will be of intermediate difficulty and may take just a few dozen edits, but it won't be that hard. The article has more than 50% chance of passing if you follow my suggestions. Someone else will have the final say.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 406 mm, use 406 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 406 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, El on ka 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So...any other comments? Has the article improved enough? Thegreatdr 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have failed this article as GA for the moment. My primary concerns with it are that it has problems with its references and cites but most importantly fails to broadly cover the topic, seemingly covering only matters relating to the United States. I have given my detailed review comments below:
Many thanks - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it should be renominated for GA, as these issues seem to be not issues anymore. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I remain in a quandry regarding the comments made during the recent GA review. One solution to the problem would be to create an article titled United States tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting where the US centered segments late in the article could be preserved. I just wish other countries had presentations or studies available concerning tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. 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) 09:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing has some unsourced statements, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. There may also be some prose issues, but I am not experienced with weather-related articles. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This information was split off from tropical cyclone rainfall climatology in order to help out with its length. There also appeared to be enough information to create a separate article with this name. Thegreatdr 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A few things I found, by quickly doing a review of the article:
Overall, I like it - it is coming very well. Maybe the book links can be modified slightly to use {{ cite book}} and the footnote system, or we could try something new and use the Harvard referencing system instead. (It is seldom used because it is more difficult to set up.) Either way, if those things above are addressed, it should get GA status easily. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We had complete overlap between tropical cyclone rainfall climatology and this article, so I shortened the section relating to TC rainfall climatology. In my view, some climatological aspects do need to be included in this article. Thegreatdr 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ready to do a GA review of this article yet, but one thing that caught my eye is that the lead is inadequate. The big issue is that the lead should contain the title of the article in bold preferably at or near the beginning, for example:
Just a suggestion. Word it how you like, but the lead needs a "lead sentance" containing the title of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem that the issues above have been adequately addressed. The lead is too short for the subject (could be at least two grafs), the references are still mixed, there are some things that should be cited but aren't, and there are a few places where the prose could be ironed out. I will go into specifics about this later.
This has been on GAC long enough and a decision has to be made. Certainly it has the potential once this issues are fixed. Daniel Case 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting SCORES IN KEY AREAS | |||||
Legality | A | A | A | A | |
Neutrality | A | A | A | A | |
Writing | A | A | A | A | |
Sources | B | B | B | ||
Citations | B | B | B | ||
05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
The writing is good. The pictures are all free and proper for the article. However, there are not many sources eventhough there are an average amount of references, which means the article is a bit small, and that is especially the case for the lead. The article is obviously good, but there are formatting WP:MoS issues to address as well as size issues in terms of lead length (should have more paragraphs) and the throughness of citations. The work will be of intermediate difficulty and may take just a few dozen edits, but it won't be that hard. The article has more than 50% chance of passing if you follow my suggestions. Someone else will have the final say.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 406 mm, use 406 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 406 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, El on ka 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So...any other comments? Has the article improved enough? Thegreatdr 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have failed this article as GA for the moment. My primary concerns with it are that it has problems with its references and cites but most importantly fails to broadly cover the topic, seemingly covering only matters relating to the United States. I have given my detailed review comments below:
Many thanks - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it should be renominated for GA, as these issues seem to be not issues anymore. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I remain in a quandry regarding the comments made during the recent GA review. One solution to the problem would be to create an article titled United States tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting where the US centered segments late in the article could be preserved. I just wish other countries had presentations or studies available concerning tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. 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) 09:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing has some unsourced statements, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. There may also be some prose issues, but I am not experienced with weather-related articles. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)