Talk:Hurricane Baker (1950)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • If you're going to use a split reference format, like you did in the 1949 Florida hurricane, you don't need to put all of the information in the in-line reference. Since you only use the book once, if you want to just put all of the information in the in-line note and delete the References (well, Further reading now that Julian has renamed it) section, that's alright too.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • A quote from HH on the talk page: "Search for more impact. It's a tad on the short side, but that may be due to to time period. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (edit)" Have you had a chance to do this?
   • Is there anything about the naming? Was this name reused, or if it wasn't, why?

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of questions regarding coverage and references, so I am putting the article on hold. Drop me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I'd still like to see some information on the naming of the storm, but this isn't a necessity. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)