Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1989 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

1989 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

1989 Pacific hurricane season

5 articles

Another hurricane good topic candidate, but this one is a little more complicated. Although not a GA the 1989 Pacific hurricane season has gone though an archived peer review, and it currently at GAN, but can not be promoted to GA status due to a backlog. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Most of the comments made at the Peer review as far as i can tell havent been dealt with. Also 1989 PHS doesnt look like it will pass its GAN unless radical improvements are made.Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go thourgh and fix the 1989 PHS tonight. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone Its my b'day 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. According to criterion 3e, good topics can only include non-GA/FA/FL articles when those articles are "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status". Since you nominated the season article for GA, it is apparently not ineligible; you'll just have to wait until someone picks up the review and then come back here. Ucucha 06:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck the oppose, as the article now technically meets the criteria. However, as the below comments suggest the quality of the articles is not yet sufficient, I'm not supporting. Ucucha 06:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hurricane Ismael could have an article made on it for the topic. Category 3, did a bit of damage at least. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable enough for it to be forced to be inclued. Mabey eventually, but not now. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 1989 PHS just passed. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Oppose Still stands as the 1989 PHS is not off high quality and IMO should not off been awarded GA status.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per quality of main article and Octave's sub-article not rating. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your opposes font make sense because it still technically mets the criteria. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it fails the [[1]] YE per criterion 3: "Each article is of high quality, including the referencing", which 1989 PHS is not.Jason Rees (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing I look for in a GT/FT is mainly consensus that it'd good, but also that anything in the topic is of GA or FA status, and in this case it is. If there's an article that's not very good in it, that's a situation for those processes rather than here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what is a high quality? Decent too almost all readers? FA? A lot of info? Well-writern? That the main ssue. IMO high quality is equal to B/GA status. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that equals GA status. That's why we have it so each article has to at least be that status, so the content is looked at. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I will make a deal. I will expnad the 1989 PHS. Please be penitence, I will try to guess this done before my vacation next Monday. Feel free to help. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next few days, I'll see what I can do to help bring the two articles I've questioned above up to higher standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through Octave's article and left a few comments on the talk page for further expansion. Overall, the article does meet GA standards so I'm not holding the WPTC standards against you with the article. I'll get to the season article in the coming days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Octave and even added preps form the NHC. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the comments the could be addressed for both articles. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mid, I windthaw this nomination. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as failed GTC due to withdrawn nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]