| Revision as of 17:55, 12 July 2012 editYellow Evan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,263 edits →GA Review: FYI← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:03, 12 July 2012 edit undoMathewTownsend (talk | contribs)14,937 edits →GA Review: repy regarding uncertain dates - edit conflict with my passNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :** 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. ] (]) 17:50, 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. ] (]) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :***If that rule is not in the ] or ] guidelines, then, it should not hold an article back from promotion, BTW. ]] ] ] 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | :***If that rule is not in the ] or ] guidelines, then, it should not hold an article back from promotion, BTW. ]] ] ] 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :****It is in the GA criteria 1: "words to watch" - not to use uncertain dates. (see ]) Now you've "edit conflicted my passing of your article. So you want to argue over this? ] (]) 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I've changed it. | |||
| Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold. ] (]) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold. ] (]) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **Thanks for the review. ]] ] ] 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | **Thanks for the review. ]] ] ] 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 12 July 2012
GA Review
| 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.
- Make a slight tweak to one as Baja California is a state in MX as well as a peninsula. YE 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 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- San Carlos needs disambiguation
Done. YE 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- "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 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 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 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 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)