Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A very well written article - I find no issues that need to be corrected. Due to this, I am passing the article to GA status. Congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)