Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1986)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTropical Storm Danielle (1986) 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.
Good topic starTropical Storm Danielle (1986) is part of the 1986 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2013Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GAN[edit]

Just a note, this GAN is not a WikiCup nomination, as all of the work was done before this year. 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1986)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jenks24 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is that it looks good. Everything seems to be referenced and the article is stable, neutral and covers all major points. The two images look fine (PD and own work). I'll jot down some notes that should be easy to resolve and I'll pass it once they have been.

These are all pretty nitpicky and if you disagree with any of them, I'm open to changing my opinion if you provide a good reason. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I got everything. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, you did. Thought about failing the GAN because you refused to remove that comma, but I guess I'll let it slide (actually, I see your point and it does make sense to have a comma there). The conversion for mbar was an honest question rather than a suggestion and you can remove the conversion if you want (I honestly don't know if it adds anything to the article or not – it's your call). I just made one small edit changing the total damages to $10.5 million and removing "(PDF)" from ref 10. Had another look over the article and couldn't spot anything so I'm passing this GAN. Congrats and thanks for your quick responses to my review. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]