Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane

1943 Mazatlán hurricane 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I did a bit of copyediting, but overall the prose looks good. One concern, though; what is a "fishing death"?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
For such an historic storm, the article is a bit lacking on impact info. Here's a source with two paragraphs of good info for the Mazatlán area.
I dont see the problem with the impact and thus im passing the article. Jason Rees (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
No images at all?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

On-hold for now. Good work so far—I look forward to being able to promote this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That website you mentioned is a near-copy of the Wikipedia article, so I don't exactly trust it. For such a historical storm, yes, it might be lacking in info, but I did a thorough Google search, and to my knowledge the article is very comprehensive. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your IRC comment, I would like a 2nd opinion, outside of yours. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 should be split[edit]

Somehow this was missed in the GA review, but I believe that Hurricanehink, when he made this article, accidentally called two different references "mwr". They referred to different articles in the Monthly Weather Review. The Wiki software conflates them, even though they should be seperate. I'd fix this myself, but I don't know offhand what facts were gotten from each MWR article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I copied the ref when I was working on the Tico 83 article, which was also ref "mwr", but it was easy to catch since I only used that site once. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

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!

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/112/7/pdf/i1520-0493-112-7-1419.pdf
- In 1943 Mazatlán hurricane on 2011-05-25 03:17:22, 404 Not Found
- In 1983 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:06:47, 404 Not Found
- In 1943 Mazatlán hurricane on 2011-06-04 16:22:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a lead section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More impact, possibly in the US. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

@Hurricanehink: I noticed this article has some issues... I would appreciate it if you would be able to fix them since you were the original nominator. Noah^Talk 23:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I already removed trivial information that was added in 2016 (Walt Disney allegedly witnessed the storm). My main concern is that you mention max. sustained winds in the lede, no mention of them being sustained in the met, and nothing at all in the infobox. In the last line in the MH, is it October 12, October 13, or October 12–13? The comparison section appears to be too small. It either will need to either be expanded or merged as its current size would warrant an expand section template. Lastly, imperial units should be abbreviated instead of spelled out. Hope those help. All the best, Noah^Talk 23:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mfw when I originally wrote this article as a little boy before Hink re-wrote it and is now bumped on my watchlist. There's no confirmed reports of any maximum sustained winds (I went through this with Hink in 2011). The article is 10kb's, which is probably Yea the article is 11 years old so it isn't perfect but there are also many worse articles out there that are GA's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 12:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bring the issues up since I had checked out articles for a possible Cat 4 GT. Noah^Talk 14:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]