Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic GA Review
 | Hurricane Doreen (1977) 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll review this article! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- review
Just a few comments:
- I made some edits that you are free to change.[1]
- "developed from a tropical disturbance offshore the coast of Africa. After developing on August 13," - kind of repetitious
- San Carlos needs disambiguation
- "making Doreen the wettest tropical cyclone for the state of Nevada." - as of that date?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I've changed it. Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a couple more copy edits.[2]
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:
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- 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:
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- 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):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- fair representation without bias:
- fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- no edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass!
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)