| Revision as of 22:17, 2 April 2007 editMitchazenia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators79,930 edits change template← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:19, 3 April 2007 edit undoHurricanehink (talk | contribs)Administrators61,891 edits GA classNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{hurricane|class= |
{{hurricane|class=GA|importance=Low|merge=Yes}} | ||
| {{GA}} | {{GA}} | ||
Revision as of 00:19, 3 April 2007
 | Hurricane Lili (1984) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
Todo
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)
- Because storms can be notable without causing damage. Hurricanehink 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
GA Asessment
- 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).
Categories: