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

Reviewer: Grammarxxx ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Doesn't adhere to MoS, including references.

   A. References to sources:

   No in-line citations: accessdate, author, work, ect...

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Majority of works cited is to the subjects webpage, not a RS.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Definitely not, this organizations been around for nearly 100 years and this is all there is?

   B. Focused:

   Too many minor details.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Impossible without RS.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am quickfailing this article due to a lack of comprehensiveness and poor references that cannot be fixed within 7 days. This article was created yesterday by a new user, I suggest the user read over the good article criteria before nominating any other articles. Grammarxxx ^{( What'd I do this time?)} 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply