Talk:1899 New Richmond tornado/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have read through the article and checked the references. The article is clearly written and well referenced. It covers the relevant information in an informative and engaging way. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Well written
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): Well written
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced
b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable
c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Sets the context
b (focused): Remains focused on subject
- a (major aspects): Sets the context
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A very nice article. Congratulations!