This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. There are a few relatively problems with this article and if the editors require I can provide some pointers to help, drop a line on my talk page. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Prose is OK, a 7/10.
- 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 follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a Pass/Fail: