Talk:1941 Florida hurricane/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A very nice article, and one that I am going to pass to GA status, since I can't find anything wrong with it :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A very nice article, and one that I am going to pass to GA status, since I can't find anything wrong with it :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)