Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- 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"?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- 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)
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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?
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)