Talk:Tropical Storm Nana (2008)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. As has been pointed out on the talk page by several different hurricane-article regulars, this article relies on one source, when there are multiple advisories that could provide more detailed information. I would suggest asking the people that posted on the talk page, such as User:Juliancolton, User:Cyclonebiskit and User:Thegreatdr for help if you have questions on where to acquire this information and for more help on the normal format and requirements for hurricane articles. In response to the post about length made by Thegreatdr on the talk page: The length of the article will not automatically disqualify it from GA status. However, the lack of variety in the sourcing will.

Also, I would like to question the rationale behind the December 17th removal of "trivial naming info". The information that was removed was information that is commonly included in all hurricane articles, and also included information on why the hurricane was somewhat of an outlier location-wise, making it unique and more notable.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I would love to see this article put back up for GAN after some work has been done on the sourcing and completeness. Dana boomer (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)