Talk:Hurricane Karl (1998)/GA1

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

Greetings. I will review the article.

1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks, sections, table of contents, and general organization as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria.

2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard references.[2] Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should within quotation marks, quotation tags, or a quotation template.

3. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.

4. Written from a neutral point of view.

5. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars.

6. Compliant with image use policy. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have fair use rationales in covered by Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

The system didn't impact land, so the article is necessarily small. It appears to have the general format of a storm article for the project. The article is passed. Congratulations! Thegreatdr (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)