Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:06, 1 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

GA Review

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)

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)

• I've made a couple more copy edits.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Again, thanks for the review. YE 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)