Just not enough information, it seems. Outside of meteorological information there are only 3 sentences of substances in the article. Jdorje 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, despite that fault I still put this at B because it has that Epsilion or Zeta look to it (the infomation that is). Storm05 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, why does this storm have an article again? No damages or deaths? This should be merged... — jdorje (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- (And yes, epsilon and zeta should be merged too.) — jdorje (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because storms can be notable without causing damage. Hurricanehink 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but these aren't. Just being an off-season storm does not mean a storm needs an article. — jdorje (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Assessment
- Broadness: Pass
- NPOV: Pass
- Well-written: Pass
- Factually Accuratte: Pass
- Images: Pass
- Stability: Pass
All in all, a good article. Passed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitchazenia (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 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 2007. 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) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
