Talk:1949 Florida hurricane/GA1

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

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.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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)