Talk:Tropical Storm Blanca (2009)
 | Tropical Storm Blanca (2009) 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Blanca (2009)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. It's comprehensive and well-organized, and the prose is pretty good as well. Nicely done CB. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a tropical storm, but it looks like it doesn't do anything particular that could be considered notable, i.e. breaking records (
- Support @Tropical Storm Fausto (2020). GA doesn't change anything. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)]
- Strong Support @SMB99thx and Destroyeraa: See? I don't always disagree with merges! LOL! Anyway, this is a short-lived storm with impacts that can fit on the main page. This seems to fit the bill as a merge candidate.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)]
- Strong support per above. I see a closing coming on. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
*Extremely extremely weak support-While this article does need severe work, and it does need expansion and isn't notable, let's do a GA re-assessment before jumping to the fact that it needs to be merged and delete someone's work because a merge deletes someones work. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- support I support a merge per what users said above. 🌀chat with me!). 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)]
- Comment Because I opened up a re-assessment, please help me do it. If after 3 days, I will just do it myself. But also please do not merge the article while the re-assessment is in process and only do it after it has been done. Thanks! HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I understand. I am not sure how to do re-assessment though.... 🌀chat with me!). 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)]
- I understand. I am not sure how to do re-assessment though.... 🌀
- Strong Support nothing special, and it didn't cause much damage. Along with what other users said above. hurricanes 23:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)]
- Comment can we pause this until reassessment is over please? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support even if it is GA quality, unneeded, requested reassessment to CSD. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Considering how long the season section is, I'm not sure how wise this was. This was open for a week but the OP seemed to flip flop on the merging given his page history and this merger seemed weirdly interjected with a GAR. Pacific Hurricane 16:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)]
GA Reassessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Blanca (2009)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
The problems with the article mainly lie in the fact that GA was much more leniant in 2009, and that it no longer meets that. The article is like 13,000 bytes. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @hurricanes 23:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)]
- @I like hurricanes: in my heart, I really like the article. And I want it to stay. But I know without reassessment that won’t happen. So I want to give it a chance. I will give it a real strong oppose if it fails. Can you help with reassessment? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)]
- @
Lede
MH
Review by Chicdat
- Change "though it not expected to become a hurricane" to "though it was not expected to become a hurricane".
Done HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Change "curved banding-features" and "already developed an eye-feature" to "curved banding features" and "developed an eye feature".
Partly done I didn’t do the first part as it wouldn’t sound “encyclopediac”, but I did the 2nd part. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry. I accidentally said "curved banging features". 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Done HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Add more references to the first paragraph.
Not done I couldn't find any references besides NHC archives. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Change "The following day, Blanca dissipated over open waters" to "By the following day, Blanca had dissipated over open waters".
Done HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Change "Tropical Storm Blanca originated from a tropical wave..." to "Blanca's origins can be traced back to a tropical wave...". Also, I'm going to stop doing this, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can someone else continue the review? We shouldn't merge before this concludes. it's improper to close if there's an outstanding reassessment. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Destroyeraa, the most active editor on WPTC. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)