Talk:1949 Florida hurricane/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- I'm assuming that the fully referenced lead format is a deliberate choice. If so, that's fine. If not, in general, because leads are a summary of the whole article, they don't require references unless you're backing up a direct quote or a really controversial fact.
- 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:
Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. I had one comment about the lead, but I think everything is fine with that. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)