Talk:2006 Nova Scotia tropical storm
 | 2006 Nova Scotia tropical storm was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
GA review[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- 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):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
--Jackturner3 July 1, 2007
GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]
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 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) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dead link[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL502006_Unnamed.pdf
- In 2006 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-26 01:57:21, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Nova Scotia tropical storm on 2011-06-14 06:18:34, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Dead link 2[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL022006_Beryl.pdf
- In 2006 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-26 01:57:21, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Nova Scotia tropical storm on 2011-06-14 06:18:58, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Merge?[edit]
Although I did create this, it's pretty bare-bones, and I'm not that proud of it. Also, the title doesn't make any sense (it hit Newfoundland). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Merge - As I've said on separate occasions in the past, I am not a fan of merging good/featured content. However, this storm is so dry bones on references and impact that if Mario stomped on it it would literally disintegrate instead of coming back together. On a more serious note, this storm has very little notability, and can easily be merged into a nice cuddly season section. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Merge - This storm was not operationally noticed by the NHC and it is not surprising why, in my opinion. It was a small storm, not very intense, brief duration, and had no impact on land, if any at all. For those reasons I believe that the this storm is not notable and the article should be merged.--12george1 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)