Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2003)

message: It's absolutely incredible that you were able to write such a detailed article on a depression that lasted for only one day. This article has more information than Tropical Storm Lee (2005), which is a GA. Good sourcing and structure, but the article needs some copyediting to remove typos. Very high start for now, it can be B-class with a good copyedit. --Coredesat 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cough, Tito? :D Yea, sorry about the typos, I was using a school computer which is very prone to doubling or omitting letters. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the typos (I think), and fixed some of the grammar things. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a question. Why does TD9 have an article? + wouldn't it be fair if we had one for all, because of this predicament?Mitchazenia V4.0 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because this one actually DID enough to have enough info. – Chacor 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: #Well Written: Nice work. Pass
#Factually Acurrate: 27 refs, Nice. Pass
#NPOV: Pass
#Images: Needs more, but Pass for now.
#Stability: Pass
#Broad: Pass
Well done, hink, I guess it passes for now, just fix the image problem.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and I added another image. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, 27 refs does not necessarily mean factually accurate. Please be careful when reviewing future GA nominees. – Chacor 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Assessment

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. 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) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tropical Depression Nine (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029215601/http://www.wmo.ch/web/www/TCP/Reports/HC26-English.pdf to http://www.wmo.ch/web/www/TCP/Reports/HC26-English.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This storm caused no deaths, and only a minimal amount of damage. It's Met history is neither exciting or long (it was only a TD). All of the information can fit within the season article. Even though it's a good article, IMO, TD Nine doesn't deserve an article for itself. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like me? Merging right now. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal