Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very well written article - I find no issues that need to be corrected. Due to this, I am passing the article to GA status. Congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)