Talk:Tropical Storm Mekkhala (2015)

Tropical Storm Mekkhala (2015) 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.
Review: December 11, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Mekkhala (2015) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific 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 Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Mekkhala (2015)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well review this one, too. Actually, the only issue I have is the short lead. For example, you have an MH with three decent-sized paragraphs, but have only four sentences about it (two of which are short sentences). More could also be said about the storm's impact, such as info about damage to agriculture and houses. Overall, this is a very decent article though and I will likely have no problem listing it as a Good Article after this issue is dealt with.--12george1 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I expanded the lead a bit. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better. I will now pass this article--12george1 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]