Cyclone Innis (2009) 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.
In lieu of a GA review, I'm listing problems here. Reference 16 is dead. The article is well-written and well-referenced otherwise. Don't we still have an agreement as a project not to send individual tropical cyclones through GAN until a report is written about it? In this case, it would be from Nadi and/or JTWC. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the reference - I dont think we do as TD Auring, TC Hettie, and TC Fanelle have all passed their GANs this year. Also RSMC Nadi have included Innis in their monthly report but it isnt cited here because it doesnt contain any additional infomation about Innis. Also RSMC Nadi are very slow at releasing their BT compared to the NHC.
NHC is slow as well, and it does stop us from GANing articles for months while we wait for the TCRs. I'm going to bring this up on the project talk page. It seems odd that we would have different standards for the southern hemisphere than we would north of the equator. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good so far on the project page. I'd wait for more responses before withdrawing the GAN, and dropping the 3 which passed back down to C class. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm fine with GA or B class, but we should be consistent within the project, no matter what's decided. I'm surprised there haven't been more comments from those in the project like titoxd or julian. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
