Talk:Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007)

Merging histories?
With the long debate by Hmwith, he decided in the end to cut-and-paste...is there any way the histories can be merged? (Same with Jerry and Melissa once they get moved) CrazyC83 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Todo
I'd like some info from StormCarib to be included (link). While it may not be official, it still provides some impact, which is not currently mentioned. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added that. Juliancolton (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When adding information, please make sure it flows with the article. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just wanted to add that in, and then make it better once I found more info. Juliancolton (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GA it? Juliancolton (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The lede is very awkward, and there are multiple typos. Please learn to more coherently, and try and spell-check your work ;) --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I copy it, and then paste it on a spell checker on word perfect. It showed no mistakes. I will check again. Juliancolton (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And just so I can learn better: what makes the lede awkward? Juliancolton (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling depressions by their numbers, saying that a tropical wave intensified into a tropical depression, phrases like on the 13. The whole becoming a depression first but storm later could be clearer. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any better? Juliancolton (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GAC? Juliancolton (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Please copyedit it. I counted several spelling and grammar errors. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Juliancolton (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): See above  b (MoS):  See above notes.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Article's lead was consulted on IRC, User:Juliancolton fixed it. Thanks to him and CrazyC83, this article meets all criteria.Mitch32contribs 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
I just noticed that the only impact from the storm was included in a blog, which isn't exactly reliable. Having removed that, the article is just info from the NHC, which brings it notability into question. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, high-quality, at least till I see how much content would be in the season article if merged. YE  Pacific   Hurricane
 * It was already merged into the AHS article and it fits quite comfortably in there atm.Jason Rees (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)