Talk:Hurricane Charley (1986)/GA1

GA Review

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

• This is a nice little article. I have been through it and find nothing to criticize. I enjoyed reading it.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows the relevant parts of MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the broad areas b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratuations! Nicely done.

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)