Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is a very nice article. I really can't find anything to complain about. I fulfills are the GA criteria. A pleasure to read. Definitely a pass. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)