Talk:1903 Jamaica hurricane

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

1903 Jamaica hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

1903 Jamaica hurricane is part of the 1903 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 28, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
October 31, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1903 Jamaica hurricane destroyed five villages in Martinique established after the eruption of Mount Pelée in 1902?

Current status: Good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1903 Jamaica hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is excellent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead adequately summarizes the article. For the links in the "See also" section, WP:SEEALSO (part of the layout MOS page) states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." Since it includes the word "should" (something optional), I won't let that minor issue prevent promotion to GA.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is properly formatted. I added page numbers to one citation (required per WP:PAGENUM).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references are reliable sources and all content is appropriately referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no apparent original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism in the text that can be freely verified online. I will have to rely on good faith that there is no copyvios or plagiarism of the several paywalled sources from Newspapers.com.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	None of the content is out of scope or should be split off into a separate article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No fair use images. All images have valid license information and an acceptable free license. I removed one image that is not clearly in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	File:Morantbay1903hurricane.png is not clearly a free image and I have removed it from the article and nominate for deletion on Commons. I added page numbers in one reference which I was reading anyways to verify the content of this article. Those two minor adjustments are the only things that would have kept this article from being promoted to GA. The "See also" links should have a brief description of why they are relevant to this article, but that is optional and doesn't prevent promotion.