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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 ( talk · contribs) 11:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Praseodymium-141 Hi, any updates? :3 F4U ( they /it) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the very long delay, I'll probably get to this later today. ¹⁴¹ Pr { contribs} 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Is it possible if we could pass this review onto someone else? I have really important matters going on in real life. Sorry! ¹⁴¹ Pr { contribs} 15:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Praseodymium-141 That's alright :) I've pushed the "ask 2nd opinion" button. :3 F4U ( they /it) 17:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Article seems fine from a glance. I'll review it later.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. ( reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. ( OR):

   d. ( copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)