Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- I find the article to be well written and organised following the Manual of Style and project guidelines.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Referenced well, references are RS, sources support the cited statements.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Through with uneccessary detail.
- 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:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article meets the criteria so I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]