# Talk:Hurricane Emily (1987)

More impact, pictures, references, better wiki links. Jdorje 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Emily (1987)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I have read through the article and find that it meets the good article criteria. I made a few copy editing changes which you are free to change if I erred.
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  Well written  b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR):  No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects   b (focused): Remains focused 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral  

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass 

Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Emily (1987)/CommentsTalk:Hurricane Emily (1987)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 05:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)