Talk:1876 Atlantic hurricane season
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Tavantius in topic GA Review
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| 1876 Atlantic hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 14, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1876 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tavantius (talk · contribs) 05:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
A cursory look reveals that it's a great article and I'll accept, however, I do have some minor proposals prior to accepting it.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- No problems here. Everything follows the general Manual of Style. There are no
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- All the sources I accessed support this article and Earwig revealed no real copyvios. However, could you archive the urls if you have time.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
While the article itself is fine, I'm not too sure about the notability of the 1876 San Felipe hurricane, which has unsourced sections and seems like it can be easily merged. Do that and I'll accept it.Never mind that. Seems like you've expanded the San Felipe article significantly.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Obviously. The article is written in a neutral way and acknowledges potential systems as needed.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Obviously not.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Everything's great. However, I encourage you to replace the old track maps with ones that follow WikiProject Weather's new color style, although doing that isn't required.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
It's a nice article, however, if you can merge the San Felipe hurricane and update the track maps, I'll accept it.Seems like you've expanded it enough. I'll accept it. However, if you have time, could you update the track maps to the 2022 scale? It's not required, but it'd be nice. Tavantius (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.