Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well illustrated article.
Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well illustrated article.
Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)