Talk:Hurricane Diana (1984)/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 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):
 * Standard topics: meteorological history, preparations, impact and aftermath
 * 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):
 * 4 images, all public domain and hosted at the Commons.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I cannot read the second ref I found Diana 1984 and I can see the dates, but some kind of note in the reference information (but outside the cite web template) would be useful to explain how to use the reference. Nonetheless, I was able to confirm the data from the other sources I got no other comments beyond that: good article. --maclean (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 images, all public domain and hosted at the Commons.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I cannot read the second ref I found Diana 1984 and I can see the dates, but some kind of note in the reference information (but outside the cite web template) would be useful to explain how to use the reference. Nonetheless, I was able to confirm the data from the other sources I got no other comments beyond that: good article. --maclean (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)