Talk:2001 Gujarat cyclone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article. The prose is good and flows nicely.
 * The problem is three dead reference links.

Otherwise, the article is fine.

Xtzou ( Talk ) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorted - Reliefweb had moved them to another part of their site.Jason Rees (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Issues addressed. Article passes. Xtzou ( Talk ) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations! Nice job. Xtzou ( Talk ) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Well written
 * B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of  MOS
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: Reliable sources
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: Sets the context
 * B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Great illustrations!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Great illustrations!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Great illustrations!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!