Talk:1916 Texas hurricane/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wyatt2049 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The grammar and spelling for the article is very good. The punctuation is also great.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section complies with the manual of style. The first sentence is also the article it self in a nutshell. The layout of the article itself is in a good order for an article, and I can't see this being an issue. There are no words to watch for. There is no fiction. The embedded lists in the article are neat and well organised.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is good and verifiable with multiple references for each fact. There is no "Citation needed" Templates anywhere. The article is, again, reliable and verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Same as the above comments. The article is verifiable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article contains no original research. All of the sources are of newspaper, or reliable hurricane archive sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are none of these issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article does not go into too much detail about any off topic areas for the hurricane.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is not any unnecessary detail. It was easy to read.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This was not an issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most of the images are from NOAA and are in the public domain. All images are properly sourced.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are to the topic about the hurricane and its damage.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good article. I will let the article pass.

REVIEW

I have promoted this to good article status for the reasons in the template. I feel that it has met the criteria. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)