Talk:Typhoon Maria (2006)/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work! The only comment I have, and it's a really nitpicky one, is that you may want to standardize the linking of the organizations in your references. Mainly, you have the JTWC wikilinked in refs 3, 5, and 6, not but ref 4. As I said, really nitpicky, and not something that will hold up the article's GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work! The only comment I have, and it's a really nitpicky one, is that you may want to standardize the linking of the organizations in your references. Mainly, you have the JTWC wikilinked in refs 3, 5, and 6, not but ref 4. As I said, really nitpicky, and not something that will hold up the article's GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work! The only comment I have, and it's a really nitpicky one, is that you may want to standardize the linking of the organizations in your references. Mainly, you have the JTWC wikilinked in refs 3, 5, and 6, not but ref 4. As I said, really nitpicky, and not something that will hold up the article's GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)