Talk:Tropical Depression Nine (2000)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- In the second paragraph of the Storm history section, you say "with ship reported indicating the possibility". What?
- Simple grammar mistake; fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph of the Storm history section, you say "with ship reported indicating the possibility". What?
- 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:
One little prose issue is all that stands between this article and GA, so I am putting the article on hold to allow time to address it :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy review! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)