Talk:Cyclone Rosita

message: It's close to B class, but you should work on putting it more into your own words. A lot is very similar to the BoM summary. Also, other sources couldn't hurt. Good job though. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed some words, but my English is not brilliant; putting in my own words is quite difficult. Very nice picture! RaNdOm26 07:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I suppose it's B class. Don't worry, your English is fine. Just try a little more to summarize; one long, well-written sentence is better than two small, poorly-written sentences. Surprisingly, finding a good pic was pretty hard. Aside from the Australian images, most satellite pics were too blurry or zoomed out, until I found the one that's in there now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing, you should try and use 17th April as little as possible. First, it leads to a redirect. Next, for me at least, it doesn't make much sense. Linking 17 April or April 17 would be nice, in the future. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll try to avoid that. Also, I've noticed the 'storm path needed' template in the storm history section. Hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm..........how can I create one, and what specific info do I need to make one? RaNdOm26 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask around. Jdorje has a track map generator, but he's been absent for a few months. I write "todo" instead of "to do" because it is a shorter form of the generally accepted "Todo List". --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you should link as April 17. Linking 17th April leads to a redirect, which is a little annoying sometimes. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 17 April is also acceptable, but the month date combo should be linked as such, read WP:MOSDATE for the rationale. I'm trying to get the track map problem sorted, with any luck I'll manage that this week (AND get the colors correct).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter linking it as April 17 or 17 April, as your settings will automatically change it. Good luck with the track maps. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does make a slight difference as unregistered users don't have preferences. In my opinion, whichever one of April 17 and 17 April is the more correct form for Australian dates should be used in this article wikilinked to allow registered users to use their prefs. I can now make the track map for Rosita, however that would use JTWC data at this time, I'd rather wait until I figure out how to use the BoM's.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: True, ok. Good luck with the maps. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article looks good. You should put it up for GA. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it. RaNdOm26 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Well referenced, good photos, thorough coverage of storm and aftermath, and relevant external links. If more pics could be found and distributed appropriately through the article, that would be nice.  Otherwise, great job folks!--Esprit15d 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article!

message: Just as a note, for the sake of standardisation within WPTC, I've removed the colons from UTC times. Our timelines don't use colons for UTC, and both with and without colons is accepted, so I've removed them. – Chacor 11:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UTC times are NOT compulsory, are they? I've removed them since the article becomes too technical. RaNdOm26 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:MOSDATE: "If you know it, include the UTC date and time of the event in the article, indicating that it's UTC." – Chacor 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's no word in it that says it's compulsory. RaNdOm26 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "if you know it", and in this case it is known. – Chacor 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTC times 

message: As 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 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. 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) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Substituted at 12:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment