Talk:Hurricane Olaf (2003)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Grammatical mistakes are present and clarification needs to be make in some areas such as "but during real time believed to had been a hurricane for much longer." Also minor grammatical mistakes such as "Over the next two weeks the it moved" and also, "This is equivalent winds". Also when rounding the figures the number at the end either should be a 5 or a 0 eg. (63 mph is rounded to 65 mph and 72mph is rounded to 70 mph).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. *Issues fixed*

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all necessary aspects of a tropical cyclone article. Focused on the topic, doesn't stray.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not biased.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars

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):

   Images are captioned and are tagged. Has sufficient images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Issues resolved passing. Congratulations.