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

Reviewer: Ashliveslove ( talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Have started reviewing the article. ASHU ^IND 12:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Review

1. No disambiguation links found. All inter wiki-links are correct.
2. No edit wars found.

Problems

1. Found dead links and have tagged them in article. Please remove them.

 Done Have removed the only dead link found manually. ASHU ^IND 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Not much concerns here. ASHU ^IND 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references and corrected where problems were found ASHU ^IND 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All aspects have been covered. ASHU ^IND 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

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):

   All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHU ^IND 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: