Talk:1893 New York hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 01:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 01:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here we go:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Could the image descriptions be improved a little so that they are not as bland? This seems to be hit or miss in the other hurricane GAs that I looked at... actually, the "Storm path" one seems pretty standard, but I think that the main image description could be improved. Also, while not a GA requirement, it would be nice to see some alt text per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
2. Under "Impact", first paragraph: "The storm is often cited as an example of a noteworthy New York City tropical cyclone." Nothing in the source claims this and, although it does mention the storm, one source doesn't provide evidence of something being "often cited". It may be better to refactor this to something like "The storm has been cited..." which is a little more verifiable and a little less POV than "often" (two reasonable people could disagree on what "often" entails, for example)
3. Same section, second paragraph: "Groups of children gathered the birds and pick them, with the apparent intention of selling them to restaurants." There's something wrong with this sentence... was it supposed to be "and picked them up"?

And that's really about it. To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Got them all, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spiffy! Time to pass this as a GA, so congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)