# Talk:Deep Depression ARB 02 (2008)

Whoever made this page, I'd like to thank. This page has had quite innapropriate content earlier but now it's a detailed describer of the event.
User:K50 Dude

As I see it everything is from 1 of 2 sources. Which is fine if it covers enough, but instead of leaving sources as uncited one can use the "ref name" tag and cite the same source so as to cover the whole article and not to have uncited info. Then of course the citations missing would be fair game for removal. Lihaas (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a way to cite whole sections... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed citation stuff. SpencerT♦C 01:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible this flooding was from the Tropical Depression that made landfall earlier this week?  If so, then it could be included in that article. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Please do not move an article unless you are given the go ahead for it. I already have a separate article for the cyclone under-construction. They can stay separate so long as there is enough information to keep the flood article stable. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hurricane Mitch caused heavy deaths due to its flooding.this tropical storm caused the flooding not its remnants.if mitch can have a title page then this storm is worth having one, not something as yemen floods praddy06 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm making the article now, the flood article isn't going to be the "title page". I just need at least an hour or two to finish it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
i did not see that.its good u started an article once its finished it can be merged with the main article praddy06 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well. Actually the storm wasn't notable at all while the floods are. I think it should be kept as a flood article. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the Storm was notable enough to warrant an article with the floods being merged into the impact section Jason Rees (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No. According to the RSMC, it issued the last warning to the system on 23-10-2008 while SUSTAINED MAXIMUM WIND SPEED IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 15-20 KNOTS. Maybe the floods are caused by the remnants of the system, but the system isn't notable for writing an article itself. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the map could/should be replaced with Image:2008 Yemen rainfall totals 03B.jpg? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably the track map of this need to be in the meteorological section. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be placed in their as soon as somone gets around to writing the article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Yemen cyclone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


### GA criteria
Well-written: The article complies with the MOS policies on grammar, structure and general layout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
Verifiable with no original research: The article uses plentiful reputable sources; no signs of original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
(c) it contains no original research
Broad in its coverage: The article seems to sufficiently cover all relevant areas of its topic for which reliable information could be accessed. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The revision history shows that this article has not been subject to any disruptive editing since at least 2009. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: The article's four images are public domain, thereby there is no risk of fair use violation. All serve relevant purposes within this article, and all are properly captioned. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

 After (finally) reading the article over, I believe it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations!!! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Hope you liked it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)