Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm on it.
First note: In the first sentence, you mention 1994 two times. I'd recommend taking the first one out.
More to follow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, again for the delay. I made two minor corrections myself, other than that, I see no reason to fail this article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]