Talk:Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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):
 * 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):
 * An image for this storm may not be necessary but it wouldn't hurt to have one
 * 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):
 * An image for this storm may not be necessary but it wouldn't hurt to have one
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Another well written article Julian. Other than an image (if possible), the article passes. If you can't find a useful one, it wont really do much since the storm was short lived. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. As the article is very short, there isn't much room for another picture, without unnecessary whitespace. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on another GA then :) Keep up the good work. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)