Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Dolly (2002)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTropical Storm Dolly (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
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 26, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
January 17, 2011[[==GA Reassessment==
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Dolly (2002)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I am delisting the article to merge the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)|Good article nominee]][reply]		Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

What's needed?[edit]

What else can I do to expand this article to get it to GA status other than a picture? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit. For examples, the word "Dolly" appears 28 times in the main text. Looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow...I'll do what I can to fix that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think it's better now. Removed a bunch of them by either replacing it with "the storm" or rewording the sentence to not need either of them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Dolly (2002)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • There should be no new information and therefore no references in the lead.
    • Either use convert templates all the time or none of the time, don't go back and forth.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I am putting this article on hold in order to allow time to deal with the two minor concerns detailed above. Feel free to drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seemed to be the same problem as with the Josephine article. I've replaced all the convert templates with text now and removed the reference from the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, exactly the same problem :) I think each editor has his/her blind spots (I know I do)! Not a big deal, and everything looks great now, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

As with other storms that didn't affect land, I thought I'd start the discussion. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively speaking, it appears consensus is gradually converging on a push to merge such articles as this, so I have no objections, new to the project as I may be. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Dolly_(2002)&oldid=1069792116"