# Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Doreen (1977)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article!  MathewTownsend (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
review
Just a few comments:

I made some edits that you are free to change.[1]
Make a slight tweak to one as Baja California is a state in MX as well as a peninsula. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"developed from a tropical disturbance offshore the coast of Africa. After developing on August 13," - kind of repetitious
Removed the first part as it was not true AFAIK. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
San Carlos needs disambiguation
 Done. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"making Doreen the wettest tropical cyclone for the state of Nevada." - as of that date?
Yea, but the record has not been broken since. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
but you don't know when a view is reading this article. Perhaps they're read it a year from now, and that statement may not be true then. It's a rule somewhere in MoS not to use uncertain dates. I've changed it. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If that rule is not in the layout or lead guidelines, then, it should not hold an article back from promotion, BTW. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It is in the GA criteria 1: "words to watch"  - not to use uncertain dates. (see relative time references) Now you've "edit conflicted my passing of your article. So you want to argue over this?  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it. 
Otherwise the article looks fine. Will put on hold.  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made a couple more copy edits.[2]
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: 

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:y 

c. no original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
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!

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the review. YE  Pacific Hurricane 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)