Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)/1

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Notability is not within GAR's purview. Dead links are, but they satisfy the criteria. Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. Now the article is sourced correctly. The problem is, almost half the sources are permanent dead links with one non-permanent dead link. Personally, I feel as if that comprises 2b because of that. Though, this nomination is mainly a test to see if permanent dead links are a problem for GAs. Though, I do also have some qualms about the article's notability in general but that's not for GAR. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at the NHC's website and found links to most of the dead links in here and here. I might be minded to add them in tommorrow but im also not sure if this article should exist. Personally, I dont think dead links are too much of a problem for the GA criteria when the citations are cited up properly, especially when we bear in mind that journals do not need a URL and here we are dealing with an actual product that was issued by an agency rather than jo blogs extremely reliable website that isnt archived in the internet archive.Jason Rees (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That references be online-only is not a GA criteria. Criteria 2b is "all inline citations are from reliable sources". The bulletins of the US National Hurricane Center are considered reliable for reporting on weather events. Even those that existed before the internet are considered reliable. maclean (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per footnote 3 of the GA criteria, dead links are only a GA-relevant problem if they are bare urls. So in this case, they are not. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.