Talk:Hurricane Rick (1997)/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I think the first two sentences of the lead should actually be one sentence, otherwise, they don't really make sense. Please check and clarify.
   • Please run through the article and make sure you keep your tense the same, past vs. present.
   • In "Preparations" you say "as well as airports in Huatulco and Puerto Escondido where power failures occurred." Did power failures occur during Pauline or Rick?
   • Same section, you say "130 Red Cross workers". Sentences shouldn't be started with numerals.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Make sure that all of your refs have publishers, and that they're all formatted the same way with author (if available), title, publisher, access date.

   • Refs must have publishers, which come directly after the title. They do not need authors, which come before the title, although these should be provided if the webpage or newspaper article has an author by-line. For example, refs 1, 2, 12, and 13 have no publisher. For refs 2, 12, and 13, what you now have as the author is what I would put as the publisher information.

   • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Impact" section needs a ref.
   • The last two sentences of the last paragraph of the "Records" section need a ref.

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:

Overall, a nice article. I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address the few minor concerns I've detailed above. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have followed through with your suggestions. If this passes I'll polish up Gilma tomorrow. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one more comment on the refs section. If you could take care of this, then I will pass the article. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added/switched authors/publishers for the references you brought up. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I found another link with no publisher, with a dead link (#8), but I've already fixed it. So, since everything has been fixed, I am passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)