Talk:1910 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Canadian  Paul  03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, very nice and not much to fix up for GA. Just a few comments: 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  04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a precedent for leaving out the captions from the storm paths? I can see how it is redundant and becomes repetitive fairly quickly, but I'm just curious if there's a precedent for this.
 * You mean in the infoboxes? As far as I'm aware, there's no way to add captions to them. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reference #6 is either no longer working or requires a subscription - if it is the former, it should be fixed, if it is the latter, that should be noted with the reference.
 * Hmm, it's a free PDF, and it works fine for me. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that... I copied and pasted the issue from the last hurricane review and forgot to change the reference - I meant Reference #10. Canadian   Paul  15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The Hurricane Archive went down a couple months ago, leaving us with hundreds of broken links. Fixed in this particular instance. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Under "Tropical Storm Two", I know that there's only so many accurate synonyms for "storm", but there are ways to cut it down so that it's not so repetitive. For example, "Storm advisories were issued for coastal areas in advance of the storm, which produced strong winds and high tides along the Texas coast" could be simplified to "Storm advisories were issued for coastal areas in advance, which produced strong winds and high tides along the Texas coast" because it's pretty obvious what a storm advisory is issued in advance of, particularly as you've been discussing it for the previous three sentences.
 * Good point, fixed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a way to hide the infoboxes? If so, it would aid in readability (I get a lot of white space on my computer). If not, oh well.
 * Not really, no. The whitespace is actually forced; without it, the infoboxes would float all over the place. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Under "Hurricane Five", second paragraph - "Although total monetary damage from the storm is unknown, estimates of losses in Havana, Cuba exceed $1 million and in the Florida Keys, $250,000." - Are these figures both in USD? Are they in 1910 dollars or 2010 dollars?
 * Clarified, thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replies are above. Thanks for the review! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the review above... everything looks good now except for that one reference issue, whose problem I have corrected above. Canadian   Paul  15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well everything looks great now, so I'll be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)