Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2003)

Assessment
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. --Core des at 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I got the typos (I think), and fixed some of the grammar things. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * No, because this one actually DID enough to have enough info. – Chacor 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It think that the GA promotion has taken so long because it is a new article written by one sole editor, which makes it difficult for people who know nothing about the subject to validate whether it adheres to NPOV. What do you think about asking someone from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones to have a look at it?

Fred-Chess 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Assessment

 * 1) Well Written: Nice work. Pass
 * 2) Factually Acurrate: 27 refs, Nice. Pass
 * 3) NPOV: Pass
 * 4) Images: Needs more, but Pass for now.
 * 5) Stability: Pass
 * 6) 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)


 * Thanks, and I added another image. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
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)
 * Support. As the author, it’s fine by me. I was excited when I first wrote it writing the first article for a tropical depression, and having it part of a 2003 AHS topic. You are right though, there isn’t much to discuss with the storm; it was short-lived and didn’t do that much. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not notable. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short lived non-noteworthy cyclone. Drdpw (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This storm is a failure and didn't do much.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support not particularly long or noteworthy and a summary can be easily fitted into the season article.  Java Hurricane  05:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment alr, that's enough consensus for a merge. Waiting for an uninvolved editor to merge. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like me? Merging right now. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)