Talk:Cyclone Glenda

I hate to do this but...

This article is not B-Class. Theres no preparations or aftermath section and the impact section is short, surely theres more infomation out there on this storm and as for the retirement of the storm name, what name replaced it? Storm05 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the SHem. There is never as much information as the Atlantic or EPac. The writing and grammar is very good, it includes most if not all major aspects of the storm. It's good enough for B. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a recent storm and thus theres more infomation about this storm even if it is in the SHem. And thus I lowered back down to start. Storm05 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not start. If you want, you can go look for more information, and find that no more exists. You could search for hours, (I have already checked the news sources) and there is really not that much info to work with. Please read the assessment guide. While it may not be ready for FA, it certainly is B. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering that the storm caused no deaths and minimal damage, it's pretty good that Hurricanehink found this much information. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Storm05, while there may not be a preps and aftermath section, if you read the article you would know that the impact section has preps and aftermath interspersed with impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work on this article, it has passed the GA article criteria for comprehensiveness, images, sources, etc. Hello32020 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's still a minor manual of style issue with the article dates. Month day (e.g. "May 22") should not be wikilinked unless it's a part of the full date (e.g. May 22, 2008). Dr. Cash (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Glenda a Category Four (SSHS)

In the post season, the JTWC downgraded Glenda to a 140mph Category Four, I'm not sure why though...it doesn't really make sense..but that's what's in the best track data...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When was that? The track map even has a red dot on it.Potapych (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The JTWC revised their assessment of Glenda in post-analysis (in the best track). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the map. Potapych (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Glenda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720191925/http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/353351307/docs/cyclone4.pdf to http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/353351307/docs/cyclone4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)