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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two disambiguations fixed. diff

Linkrot: no dead links found.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   The prose is "reasonably well written", I made a small number of copy-edits. diff Complies sufficiently with the MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Online sources check out, I assume good faith for print sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, whilst remaining focussed on the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Correctly tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have no hesitation in passing this as a good article. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking the time to review the articles. Your feedback is continuing to make me an ever better Wikipedian. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply