Talk:Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

	Tropical Depression Two-E (2006) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed June 29, 2010 Featured topic candidate Promoted February 2, 2023 Good article reassessment Kept February 27, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance This redirect 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 Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance). This redirect is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The article is great. It satisfies the GA criteria. However, I am placing its promotion on hold until one thing is cleared up. The article currently states "at 1500 UTC on June 3 the NHC classified the system as Tropical Depression Two-E". This statement is not directly cited but the time of classification is noted in two of the references: [1] says "1800 UTC" and [2] says "1500 GMT". Is this one of these sources in error? or am I missing something? If there are two values floating around perhaps the statement in the article should be cited directly to one of those. Also, the article states "partially flooded 42 houses" and is referenced to [3] which states "about 40 homes" - 42 seems oddly specific.

Also, this won't disqualify the article from GA status, but I thought I'd bring it up here. "developed good outflow" - perhaps something more descriptive than good would be better. Illustrative adjectives can also help avoid losing readers to other articles if they can catch the meaning without reading another article. --maclean 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really checked the thing out closely, nice! :) The sentence is cited by the next reference, which says 1500z (z meaning Zulu, which is UTC). The flooding thing was me getting a tad confused in translation, but you're right, it should be "about 40 homes". For the "good outflow", that was the wording in the source. Sometimes the source is more specific, saying something like well-defined outflow. It's not really the case here, and I can't think of a better wording than that. Thanks for the review, and I hope I cleared that up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have no other concerns regarding the article. --maclean 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]