Talk:Hurricane Baker (1950)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
If you're going to use a split reference format, like you did in the 1949 Florida hurricane, you don't need to put all of the information in the in-line reference. Since you only use the book once, if you want to just put all of the information in the in-line note and delete the References (well, Further reading now that Julian has renamed it) section, that's alright too.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A quote from HH on the talk page: "Search for more impact. It's a tad on the short side, but that may be due to to time period. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (edit)" Have you had a chance to do this?

Is there anything about the naming? Was this name reused, or if it wasn't, why?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of questions regarding coverage and references, so I am putting the article on hold. Drop me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I'd still like to see some information on the naming of the storm, but this isn't a necessity. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]