Talk:Hurricane Rosa (1994)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and I should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be expanded a bit with a couple of sentences about the meteorological history of the storm.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The only issue that I have with the article is that I would like to see the lead expanded, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address this. Other than that, this is a very nice article. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some meteorological history to the lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]