This article 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.
I think being a GA is basically the equivalent of A-class on our assessment scale, so it should be discussed on the wikiproject page too (I have done so above).
The season summary section is too short - basically the same length as the intro. This should either be folded into the intro or expanded.
Each storm's section should have length proportional to that storm's notability (regardless of any daughter articles that cover the storm). The article violates this principle in that Fausto has the longest section by far, while Kenna has the shortest.
The storm tracks for Hurricanes "Ele" and "Huko" should really include the track while west of 180 meridian. Hurricanes "John" and "Li" in 1994 had full tracks including while west of the dateline, so why not these storms? RaNdOm2618:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the NHC best track data included the complete tracks for John and Li. However, only the Central Pacific part of Ele and Huko is in the NHC best tracks file. The continuation had to be collected from the JTWC. It's not perfect, as the JTWC tracked both storms in the EPac too, and had a slightly different track to the CPHC (for some bizarre reason).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if there were some sort of storm summary table, either an extensive one such as there is at the end of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season article, or a simple one such as there is at the beginning of the "Storm" section of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season article.
The lead should be expanded. For an article this length, the lead would ideally be three large paragraphs.
In the "Storm names" section, please give a reason for why there were two different sets of names being used.
Season summary section, 2nd paragraph, last two sentences
Hurricane Elida, first two paragraphs
Hurricane Fausto, first paragraph
Current ref #3 needs a title, instead of a bare link.
It is broad in its coverage.
a(major aspects): b(focused):
I would like to see a larger summary of the season. What were the pre-season forecasts? What was the total damage caused by all the storms? What was the largest storm?
I have some concerns about the broadness of this article, as well as some other minor issues with referencing and MOS. I am putting this article on hold until these issues can be resolved. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added an ACE table and a timeline. I have added references to the missing places you brought up and added a paragraph to the lead. I checked the NHC/CPC and there were no seasonal forecasts. They began in 2005 and testing starting in 2003. I added that Kenna was the most damaging and costliest to the seasonal summary. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun a copyedit of the article, working on grammar as well as removing some unencyclopedic tone. I have made it up to Tropical Storm Iselle (this is more a note for myself than anything). I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on the article this weekend, but I promise to have it done (with any remaining comments for you) by Monday night. If you have any questions, please let me know. I apologize for taking so long to finish this...some RL things have unexpectedly come up :( Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to deal with RL first, WP second. Just be forewarned that on weekdays I won't be on WP until mid-afternoon. Also, I assume that your not strikethroughing out the part about the lead being expanded means that you think it should be still longer? If so, I can handle that later this weekend. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little extra time online this weekend, so I've completed the copy-edit of the article. The only prose issue I found was:
In Hurricane Kenna, second paragraph - Do the first few sentences refer to historical records or season records? Please make this clear.
The lead could be a little longer (I meant to include that in my last post, but apparently forgot). However, it's not a big deal.
Because neither of the above issues are anything except pickiness, I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work on the article, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
I have just modified 6 external links on 2002 Pacific hurricane season. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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.
I have just modified 8 external links on 2002 Pacific hurricane season. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
No consensus to recreate the timeline article. While there is enough content to split off the timeline into a separate article, it has relatively little content for a timeline article, and multiple editors here have raised issues with the timeline article in its condition prior to the merger. Consensus is currently strongly against splitting the timeline back out of this article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since last month, I have requested the split of timeline in behalf of Modokai in the project discussion. However there is no discussion since last January, as such I opt to continue the discussion here. MarioJump83!08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the timeline was never completed, which is why it was merged. If Modokai wishes to split the article and complete the timeline, I don't see the issue. There's already a well-established precedent for the creation of season timelines (provided that they are comprehensive), so I don't know if there needs to be a dedicated discussion for creating a timeline for this particular season. — Iunetalk23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm a bit late... I would be willing to work on the timeline if we split it. It would only take a week or two for me to complete if we split. CodingCyclone!🌀📘21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that timeline split is never going to happen. And this discussion has been dragging on for months, so the discussion is stale. Is there anyone to close this? @LightandDark2000:MarioJump83!08:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - the season article already covers most of the content in the Fausto article. I don't think the unique meteorological history is reason enough to keep the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
b(MoS): 
b(citations to reliable sources): 
