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

Reviewer: Arctic Night 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi - I'll be taking a look at this article right now and going through a list of problems I find (that can't just be fixed by me). Then, I'll make my overall decision! Arctic Night 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• This article is very well sourced, so I don't think we'll have any issues with verifiability here.

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

I really can't fault this article. I know I didn't take too long to reach a decision, but everything looks great - the article is incredibly well-sourced and the prose is excellent. Arctic Night 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply