Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Maclean25 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Standard topics: meteorological history, preparations, impact and aftermath
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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):  
    4 images, all public domain and hosted at the Commons.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I cannot read the second ref I found Diana 1984 and I can see the dates, but some kind of note in the reference information (but outside the cite web template) would be useful to explain how to use the reference. Nonetheless, I was able to confirm the data from the other sources [1] I got no other comments beyond that: good article. --maclean (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply