Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The lead should be longer. Content from the history, influence and movement section should be summarized in the lead.
- Thanks, yes, so it should. I've expanded it to include those things. --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (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 follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- 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):
- Overall: The lead is the only major issue. --GoPTCN 12:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)