Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2009 North American storm complex/1
The 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 • • Most recent review
- Result: If the only question is over a subsection heading, I think this can be kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This mostly has to do with updating refs and removing dead ones, but there are also WAY too many sections with too many paragraph breaks. There are also points where it is overly detailed. ChessEric 21:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- You'll have to bear with me on this as it may take some time to get things up to par. I wrote this almost 14 years ago when I was in a phase of including minute details so it hasn't aged well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- LOL! It's alright. We all aren't that good in the beginning and I for one, as you've seen with my recent tornado summaries, have trouble with being too detail-oriented. ChessEric 12:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: Make sure that if you're going to combine tables, please make sure it doesn't mess up the entries on the list page. ChessEric 20:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit and ChessEric: where do you feel this article stands now in relation to the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that its gotten WAY better. The only question I have is why the impacts from Texas to Louisiana being called West South Central states. ChessEric 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.