Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Maclean25 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Standard topics: meteorological history, preparations, impact and aftermath
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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):
- 4 images, all public domain and hosted at the Commons.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail: