Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 28, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 19, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): It is well written with tight prose. b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Article subject places in contex b (focused): Well focused on subject of article
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral in viewpoint
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A good job as usual! Article passes GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Rough consensus to merge, thus needs to be demoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As author, I support it being demoted, but I think this level of bureaucracy is a bit excessive. I would like to state on record that I think there should be an easier way to demote GA's, just so they can get merged. </rant> ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as nobody objects, we just wait a week or so and demote it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that in uncontroversial circumstances, GAs could be quick-delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright,

Done then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]