Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. 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)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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?

7. 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)

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)

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