Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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]
- Make a slight tweak to one as Baja California is a state in MX as well as a peninsula. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- "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. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- San Carlos needs disambiguation
- "making Doreen the wettest tropical cyclone for the state of Nevada." - as of that date?
- Yea, but the record has not been broken since. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 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)
- 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)
- Thanks for the review. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 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)
- Again, thanks for the review. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)