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

Reviewer: Mike Searson ( talk · contribs) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (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):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   Pass/Fail:

• Overall it looks really well done; just doing some MOS checks right now.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Very nicely done. This was a well-written article with very good sourcing. It seems almost ready to be a Featured Article.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you kindly, a lot of editors have put in a lot of work on this article.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply