Plenty of citations to reliable sources. No unsourced content or original research found. However, I would recommend removing the rumors about the Heather Mills endorsement, it's not very encyclopedic. It's a suggestion; it doesn't have to be removed.
Article does seem biased towards positive publicity of the company, particularly in the Awards section, although finding little negative publicity or controversy in research, I'll have it pass.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article stable
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Image not in public domain. Unless if the uploader of the image has the rights to it, I'm questionable about it. See
WP:FUR, you nmay be able to attach a template to the bottom explaining why it would be free to use on Wikipedia. Other than that, images are well fitted.
Ok, it turns out it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, meaning it's in the creative commons.
Plenty of citations to reliable sources. No unsourced content or original research found. However, I would recommend removing the rumors about the Heather Mills endorsement, it's not very encyclopedic. It's a suggestion; it doesn't have to be removed.
Article does seem biased towards positive publicity of the company, particularly in the Awards section, although finding little negative publicity or controversy in research, I'll have it pass.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article stable
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Image not in public domain. Unless if the uploader of the image has the rights to it, I'm questionable about it. See
WP:FUR, you nmay be able to attach a template to the bottom explaining why it would be free to use on Wikipedia. Other than that, images are well fitted.
Ok, it turns out it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, meaning it's in the creative commons.