Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2000)

Tropical Depression Nine (2000) 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 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 9, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Todo[edit]

At least one source from a non NOAA agency, such as a news source ideally covering some form of impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2000)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the second paragraph of the Storm history section, you say "with ship reported indicating the possibility". What?
Simple grammar mistake; fixed. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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:

One little prose issue is all that stands between this article and GA, so I am putting the article on hold to allow time to address it :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy review! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The storm really did very little. There is only one newspaper source I can find that even mentions it (the one that's in the article), and it confirms that it didn't do much of anything. It caused some light rainfall, that's it. In my opinion, it looks poor being this small. I think it should be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we are having a discussion about merging Tropical Storm Don (2011) and some say that storm did almost nothing, it would be even easier to merge this one. So yeah, merge this article.--12george1 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting, and it's even shorter now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAR[edit]

This article is severely lacking information and is too short to qualify for GA, and even be an article for that matter.--12george1 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]