Talk:1943 Mazatlán hurricane/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I did a bit of copyediting, but overall the prose looks good. One concern, though; what is a "fishing death"?
 * 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):
 * For such an historic storm, the article is a bit lacking on impact info. Here's a source with two paragraphs of good info for the Mazatlán area.
 * I dont see the problem with the impact and thus im passing the article. Jason Rees (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * No images at all?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No images at all?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

On-hold for now. Good work so far—I look forward to being able to promote this. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That website you mentioned is a near-copy of the Wikipedia article, so I don't exactly trust it. For such a historical storm, yes, it might be lacking in info, but I did a thorough Google search, and to my knowledge the article is very comprehensive. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Per your IRC comment, I would like a 2nd opinion, outside of yours. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)