Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments:

I made some edits that you are free to change.[1]
- Make a slight tweak to one as Baja California is a state in MX as well as a peninsula. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"developed from a tropical disturbance offshore the coast of Africa. After developing on August 13," - kind of repetitious
- Removed the first part as it was not true AFAIK. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
San Carlos needs disambiguation
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"making Doreen the wettest tropical cyclone for the state of Nevada." - as of that date?
- Yea, but the record has not been broken since. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- but you don't know when a view is reading this article. Perhaps they're read it a year from now, and that statement may not be true then. It's a rule somewhere in MoS not to use uncertain dates. I've changed it. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that rule is not in the layout or lead guidelines, then, it should not hold an article back from promotion, BTW. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is in the GA criteria 1: "words to watch" - not to use uncertain dates. (see relative time references) Now you've "edit conflicted my passing of your article. So you want to argue over this? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it. Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:y

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]