Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)/GA1

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

A good job as usual! Article passes GA. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): It is well written with tight prose. b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Article subject places in contex b (focused): Well focused on subject of article
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral in viewpoint
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: