This review is transcluded from Talk:1883 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HurricaneZeta (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait, this is my first GA review and I'll try my best. HurricaneZeta (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No vandalism or edit wars, easy pass on this criteria

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• No cleanup banners or tags.
• Page is stable with no vandalism or edit wars recently — passing criteria 5.

• Lead looks good, there's only one source which verifies the claim. Also the notes are accurate.
• Source spot check passed

• "A reanalysis by climate researcher Michael Chenoweth, published in 2014, adds four storms and removes one, the fourth system." I think this could be clearer on the fourth system as readers may get confused. I did it myself.