Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: Two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linkrot: Two found and repaired.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 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):
- The article is reasonably well written. I made a number of copy-edits, mostly for grammar.[3]
- Complies sufficiently with MoS.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Well referenced, sources appear RS, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Sufficient detail without excessive minutiae
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable, no edit warring
- 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):
- Suitable licensing, FUR and captions.
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I find that this article complies sufficiently with the good article criteria to be listed. The prose could be improved, but it it "reasonably well written". Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]