Talk:1909 Monterrey hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is a nice little article and I have only a few comments. (I did some minor copy editing; please revert any errors I may have introduced.)

• "According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the flood reached an enourmous rate of 235,000 ft3 (6,650 m3) per second." - does this mean that the flood waters rose at this rate? This figure doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what it means.

Specified the unit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Of this damage, roughly $20 million was attributed to railroad losses." - better to specify, was this do to loss of tracks etc. or cargo?

The article doesn't specify. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• "the book was set to be released to the public on August 27, 2009, the 100 year anniversary of the disaster." Since it is now May 2010, was the book released? And if so, what was it's title?
• Added the information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Xtzou. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I added "above normal" to the flood rate, as I assume that's what you meant. Please correct if not. Xtzou (Talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best not to add above normal since that's not specified in the article and a 50-60ft rise in a river, I believe, is something of biblical proportions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, but shouldn't there be some referant, or the figure is meaningless. Xtzou (Talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed it and put in a generic statement so it works better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, I think you have done well, considering the sources. Good job! Xtzou (Talk) 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

A good article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 23:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xtzou :D Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)