Talk:1949 Texas hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next several days, and then I will return and put my comments here. In the meantime, I will be performing noncontroversial copyedits. I will not fail the article just because it is not "completed" after 7 days; however, I would like to see work or a note explaining that there will be an absence from editing. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review as of 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, this article looks good and needs only a few minor tweaks!

Consider using the {{US$}} template for the total damage and some of the other numbers, as it will put the cost in today's dollars. (I am assuming that the costs given are in 1949 dollars.)
In the lead, it claims that four storms were known to cross from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It needs to be verified in the body or to be cited.

Thanks for the review. Fixed the lead and added an inflation figure to the most important damage total. Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this passes the GA criteria now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Look like it meets WP:WIAGA!

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: