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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   In-line citations are missing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Several important information is missing. For example, it does not mention the domain squatting, types of registration and policies

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):

7. Overall: Please fix those issues before I resume. -- GoP _T ^C _N 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

   Pass/Fail:

I have to fail this nomination as per the advice on my talk page by the nominator. -- GoP _T ^C _N 18:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply