Talk:Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System

Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 31, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Hurricane

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software GA‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Suggestion

@Thegreatdr: have a look through both the JTWC ATCRs and the 2009 Review of hurricane forecasting article and see if there is anything decent in there that you could use to expand the article with. Theres also a nice image of the ATCF in the 2009 article that maybe able to be chucked on to commons.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah might be a decent idea to make the Reason for development more of a history/bakground details section. There's a little bit on pg 169 of the 1986 ATCR which could help you out while theres a lot in 1987 ATCR.Jason Rees (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wording looks good, enough detail, and the info is verifiable. Passing.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]