Talk:Hurricane Earl (1998)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have gone through the article and copy edited numerous errors that seemed to be typographic. That is why I fixed them rather than listing them. Please check the article to make sure I have not altered the meaning.

Otherwise, I am happy to say that this article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and copyedit Mattisse. Concerning your question about the changes, I only have one minor one.

The change in the lead about the tornado outbreak now reads that there were more than one. Since all the tornadoes were spawned by the same system, it would be considered a single event.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please change anything you feel is incorrect. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):Covers broad aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]