# Talk:1909 Monterrey hurricane

This review is transcluded from Talk:1909 Monterrey hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this is a nice little article and I have only a few comments. (I did some minor copy editing; please revert any errors I may have introduced.)

"According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the flood reached an enourmous rate of 235,000 ft3 (6,650 m3) per second." - does this mean that the flood waters rose at this rate? This figure doesn't  make sense to me. I don't know what it means.
Specified the unit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"Of this damage, roughly $20 million was attributed to railroad losses." - better to specify, was this do to loss of tracks etc. or cargo?
The article doesn't specify. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"the book was set to be released to the public on August 27, 2009, the 100 year anniversary of the disaster." Since  it is now May 2010, was the book released? And if so, what was it's title?
Added the information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Xtzou (Talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Xtzou. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I added "above normal" to the flood rate, as I assume that's what you meant. Please correct if not.  Xtzou (Talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It's probably best not to add above normal since that's not specified in the article and a 50-60ft rise in a river, I believe, is something of biblical proportions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
ok, but shouldn't there be some referant, or the figure is meaningless.  Xtzou (Talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed it and put in a generic statement so it works better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
ok, I think you have done well, considering the sources. Good job!  Xtzou (Talk) 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Clearly written; grammatically correct

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with basic  MoS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Well referenced

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Sets the context

B. Focused:  Remains focused on the topic

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

A good article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 23:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xtzou :D Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://elperiodicodenuevoleon.com/2009/08/inundacion-de-monterrey-en-1909/
In 1909 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-25 02:38:55, 403 Forbidden
In 1909 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-02 02:19:00, 403 Forbidden
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://noticias.uanl.mx/interes/descripcion.php?id_not=253&lang=en
In 1909 Monterrey hurricane on 2011-05-25 02:39:10, 404 Not Found
In 1909 Monterrey hurricane on 2011-06-02 02:20:53, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The source for the death toll is broken, and was in Spanish. Could someone try and find another source backing up the 4,000 deaths? Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1909 Monterrey hurricane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902150909/http://elperiodicodenuevoleon.com/2009/08/inundacion-de-monterrey-en-1909/ to http://elperiodicodenuevoleon.com/2009/08/inundacion-de-monterrey-en-1909/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)