Talk:Typhoon Keith

Typhoon Keith was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– These names were only used once (at least for typhoons), even though none of them were retired. GeicoHen (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, go for it on all of them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support More concise, and the year certainly isn't part of the common name. Kauffner (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Keith (1997)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K, these old GA noms gotta get taken care of.

My biggest issues are lack of metrication in the impact (and metric units should be first, per the basin), and lack of sources outside of NCDC. Try and find some more. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with before, it'd be good to get some more actual damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing because it's taking too long. The article is close, but it's just missing info outside of NCDC. There's no real examples of impact, aside from generic statistics on number of houses damaged/destroyed. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typhoon Keith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~309547

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]