After spending a lot of time and effort, I'm glad to report that this season now has GA's for every single storm worthy of having an article. This is the first attempt at a Good topic for the western Pacific, which is usually one of the most impacting basins on the planet. I think everything should be up to par! ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC) --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Considering how many links are in the main GA, how do 11 dead links (of which 4 are the same as another link, so really 7 dead links) make the quality questionable? I mean, I'll fix it, but I think that's a bit unfair of criticism, considering I worked on the article for several months. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)reply
It was just a comment, not a "criticism" per se. I just felt that the lead article should be the best possible, so fixing the dead links (or better still, archiving the links) would just improve Wikipedia. If that's unfair, I guess you should sue me ;)!
The Rambling Man (
talk)
18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, sorry, I'm just really proud of the article series, and I don't want anyone to think the quality is questionable! I hope no one thinks a few dead links suggested the topic isn't ready. For whatever reason, it's listing "Oanda" links as dead, although they're fine in the articles. They all should be good now. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay, not a problem, just wouldn't want the topic to be promoted only to be quickly demoted because one of the contributing articles is not up to the required standard. Cheers.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
11:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Closing as promoted. The dead links appear to be dealt with; however, as I've stated elsewhere (perhaps at
WT:GA in the past), dead links do not render a citation invalid, just not readily verifiable to all and sundry—placing them in the same realm as library books, newspaper article, et al, that can't always be seen from the comfort of one's computer.
GRAPPLEX00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)reply