Talk:Tropical Depression One (1993)

Tropical Depression One (1993) 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 Depression One (1993) is part of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Off-season Atlantic hurricanes series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
April 5, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
June 26, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Rainfall graphics

I'll add them next week. Chances are they should be quick to produce, since only Florida and the Yucatan peninsula would have been impacted in the lower 48/Mexico. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and added. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression One (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passed

To Work On list (specifics)

The track should be fine now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Should a NOAA Overlay & NASA Background not have the appropriate tags. (aka this is not a user created image, it is user complied. They don't hold the copyright. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think they do. The NASA image is of course in the public domain, and the track itself is user-generated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed After advice from other user. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6B: image on the left needs more explanation. (ex. you could put: yadayada from (government org) on (storm) of (year)) In general, needs to be detailed.

Done /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2B: Intro needs sourcing on statistics.

Done /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the review BTW. Well, all of the intro is sourced later in the article. The damage statistics are directly from the impact section, so there doesn't need to be a source up there. As for the image on the left, I took care of it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.
Good Job so far! /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]