Talk:Tropical Storm Agatha (1992)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * what's "10 direct"?
 * It states that 10 people died from the hurricane directly, it is in most WP:WPTC articles.
 * "As it moved northbound northwards" northbound is an adjective, but we need an adverb.
 * ✅ YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Agatha was steered toward the north"
 * Fixed. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit picky, but I suggest "and stayed remained at sea"
 * FN 6, why's "National Hurricane Center" italicised while others above and below it aren't.
 * Beause that ref is a template
 * "The center of the storm promptly became ill-defined on infrared satellite imagery" I don't get the "ill-defined on infrared satellite imagery" part.
 * Changed to poorly. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does "forecasters" need to be wikified?
 * Why not? YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "heavy rains" redirects to a video game. I don't think it should be wikified at all, since it's not technical.
 * ✅. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mexico" and "landfall" are wikified multiple times.
 * I don' think they are in the same section. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gased Times" should be formatted as The Gadsden Times.
 * ✅. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The News" should be italicised.
 * ✅. YE  Pacific   Hurricane
 * date formatting should follow one style, either YMD or DMY.
 * I made it in DMY to be consistent with other WP:EPAC articles. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dablinks reveals two occurrences of dabs.
 * Fixed the first and the second is project standards to have. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first and the second is project standards to have. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:


 * End note
 * No major problems. Very happy. Pass  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)