Talk:1949 Texas hurricane

	1949 Texas hurricane 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 14, 2011 Good article nominee Listed February 13, 2024 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[1949 Texas hurricane#Hurricane Nine|previous hurricane]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

1949 Texas hurricane has been reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather during the 2024–25 Good Article Reassessment effort. It was determined that the article met the criteria for both notability and good article at that time and its status was retained.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1949 Texas hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next several days, and then I will return and put my comments here. In the meantime, I will be performing noncontroversial copyedits. I will not fail the article just because it is not "completed" after 7 days; however, I would like to see work or a note explaining that there will be an absence from editing. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, this article looks good and needs only a few minor tweaks!

• Consider using the {{US$}} template for the total damage and some of the other numbers, as it will put the cost in today's dollars. (I am assuming that the costs given are in 1949 dollars.)
• In the lead, it claims that four storms were known to cross from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It needs to be verified in the body or to be cited.

• Thanks for the review. Fixed the lead and added an inflation figure to the most important damage total. Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this passes the GA criteria now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Look like it meets WP:WIAGA!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: