Talk:Tropical Depression Seven (2003)

Tropical Depression Seven (2003) 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	Good article nominee	Listed
November 10, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
December 30, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 30, 2011	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Seven (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

It's been a while since I reviewed an article, so I figure it's time to get back into it. I have a little background in weather and climate studies, but I'm certainly not an expert. I hope that having me read through the article and give feedback from this perspective will help ensure that the article is accessible by a wide range of readers.

To begin with, the article looks very good. I see no problem with the sources or the images (although a catchier caption than "Storm path" might be nice). The stability and neutrality are not an issue. The breadth of coverage is as good as one can expect for a tropical depression that had only minor impacts. As for the prose itself, there are a few things I noticed:

"The seventh tropical cyclone of the season as the name suggests" sounds a little awkward, although a comma after "season" might help.
"the same tropical wave that spawned previous Tropical Depression Six" is also a little awkward. Perhaps "spawned the earlier Tropical Depression Six"?
"an upper-level low" would be hard for some readers to understand. Perhaps "an upper-level low pressure cell" (or whatever the proper term is...it's been many years since I studied this)?
"developed within the system at it tracked" Should this be "as it"?
Is there a wikilink available for "convection"?
"curved banding feature" sounds a little strange. Should it be "features", or is "feature" the proper word?
"The storm continued its northwest track for its entire existence" I prefer to avoid repeating words so close together. Would "The storm continued on a northwest track for its entire existence" work?

Aside from this, I don't see any real problems. If you have questions or comments about any of these concerns, please reply here on on my talk page. I will place the review on hold and keep the article and review page on my watchlist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Seldom to I get such a thorough review, so this was a pleasant surprise. I fixed everything, other than the image caption, which is default when using {{storm path}}. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me. The image caption is fine, as it gives a clear and concise explanation of the image. I looked through the article again, and I see no reason not to promote it to GA. Great job, and thanks for the quick reply to the review. I'm glad you found it helpful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

It's really short, and the impact is practically non-existent. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]