Talk:Hurricane Lili (1984)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Lili (1984) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Hurricane Lili (1984) 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Todo
editJust not enough information, it seems. Outside of meteorological information there are only 3 sentences of substances in the article. Jdorje 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, despite that fault I still put this at B because it has that Epsilion or Zeta look to it (the infomation that is). Storm05 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, why does this storm have an article again? No damages or deaths? This should be merged... — jdorje (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- (And yes, epsilon and zeta should be merged too.) — jdorje (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because storms can be notable without causing damage. Hurricanehink 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but these aren't. Just being an off-season storm does not mean a storm needs an article. — jdorje (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because storms can be notable without causing damage. Hurricanehink 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
GA Assessment
edit- Broadness: Pass
- NPOV: Pass
- Well-written: Pass
- Factually Accuratte: Pass
- Images: Pass
- Stability: Pass
All in all, a good article. Passed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitchazenia (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
editAs part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Procedural delist Noah, AATalk 15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Merge consensus Noah, AATalk 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)