Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Version of the article when originally reviewed: 
- Version of the article when review was closed: 
- Citations: no errors found
Couple found (Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Defense, and one redirect which points back) - 
- Linkrot: Ext links all work - 
- Alt text: Images all have alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway) - 
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Overall no major issues and I believe I have corrected any typos.
The last para in the 'Post War' section is a little repetative though, as you use 'Nichols' to start the first three sentences... maybe reword a little? Anotherclown (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
- a Pass/Fail:
- An excellent article IMO.
Just the dab links and a few very minor prose tweaks required. Anotherclown (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Fixed the dablinks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Too easy, looks good to me. Happy to pass. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)