GA Review

[edit]

I'm going to fail this article because of the amount of ((cn)), ((dead link)) and the formatting of some current references. Please see WP:CITE for how to use references. All web addresses should have the URL, title, author, accessdate and date of any publication. The current referencing looks mish-mash at the moment with the variety of methods used.

But other MOS points that stand out include

I would suggest a peer review before a third GA nomination is made. Peanut4 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]