Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 12 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) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Reasonably well written, I made a few minor copy-edits

   Complies sufficiently with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out, RS, no OR. However the ELs are used as references so should be removed as per WP:EL Done

• I have replaced the online sources with book references as per Wiki reference rules, which I wasn't aware of.Canpark (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   Licensed and captioned

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just one minor point, the ELs. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you again, mate.Canpark (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]