Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)/GA1

GA Review

Article (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?)

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)