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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Meteorological history section, you say "Tropical Storm Beatriz formed out of a tropical wave which formed off the western coast" Could you get rid of one of the "formed"s please?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References 2, 3, and 4 deadlink.
   • The last two sentences of the Meteorological history section need a ref.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Could you add something in about when the name is planned to be used again? Obviously, the name wasn't retired, but could you say this directly, and tell when the name will next be used.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few comments on prose, references and coverage, so I am putting the article on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions.

Ok, I think everything is fixed up. Juliancolton fixed the double use of formed in the MH. The references are fixed, added the TCR ref the the end of the MH, and the note about the names next use. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D Two for three so far. Quick response brought to you by the power outage at school Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]