Talk:1949 Florida hurricane/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I'm assuming that the fully referenced lead format is a deliberate choice. If so, that's fine. If not, in general, because leads are a summary of the whole article, they don't require references unless you're backing up a direct quote or a really controversial fact.

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):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. I had one comment about the lead, but I think everything is fine with that. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)