Talk:1868 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi there. I'll review the article. The first thing that strikes me about it is its format. The second was the lack of a timeline, which most of our season articles have. The timeline could help out the format issue you're having between the infobox on the top right, and the content below, so I'd add one. While that is being done, I'll look over the content and see if there are any issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Reviewer: Thegreatdr (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good call, that makes it look a lot better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add timelines to the 1851 and 1852 AHS GA articles, when you get a chance. This GA is not contingent upon that though... Thegreatdr (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: *Add wikilink for the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis to the lead. *Add wikilink to Caribbean sea in the lead. *Add wikilink to United States in the lead.

Hurricane One: *Add wikilink for gale-force in the first TC section. *400 miles away from where?

Reference section: *Reference 3 should be in cite journal format. All the relevant information seems to be there on the top of the first page of the document. *Wikilinks seem inconsistent. I'd wikilink to NOAA in its first occurrence, HRD, and me. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Done :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The NOAA and HRD wikilinks should be within ref 1, since they appear on the page first in that ref. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other aspects: Although the sections are short, there isn't much information out there. I compared this article to the other 19th century articles which have previously passed GA, for perspective. Since the 1851 AHS has downright stubby sections, I won't consider section length an issue here. The references are all alive and kicking, so no dead links. All needed nbsps appear to be there. All needed metric units are there. Once the above issues are resolved, I'll pass the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I tried finding other info, but Google news doesn't help too much for the time period. Thanks for the review, hope everything is in order! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been passed. Congratulations! Thegreatdr (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]