GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay.
This appears appears to be at least GA-standard, nevertheless, I'm working my way through the article; and at this point will just highlight any "problems" or "difficulties. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: (See Cuthbert of Canterbury, which I've just review of a correctly referenced GA) Pyrotec ( talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold: there are just too many WP:unverifiable ciations. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative, well-referenced, article.
I suspect that this article has the potential to become a WP:FAC; but I'm not sure how the combination of "notes" and "footnotes" into a single "note", such as e.g. citations 1, 2 and 7, would be viewed by FAC. They might require their separation into Notes and Footnotes - but that is speculation on my part. I would suggest that if the article were to be submitted to FAC, it should be preceeded by WP:PR. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay.
This appears appears to be at least GA-standard, nevertheless, I'm working my way through the article; and at this point will just highlight any "problems" or "difficulties. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: (See Cuthbert of Canterbury, which I've just review of a correctly referenced GA) Pyrotec ( talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold: there are just too many WP:unverifiable ciations. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative, well-referenced, article.
I suspect that this article has the potential to become a WP:FAC; but I'm not sure how the combination of "notes" and "footnotes" into a single "note", such as e.g. citations 1, 2 and 7, would be viewed by FAC. They might require their separation into Notes and Footnotes - but that is speculation on my part. I would suggest that if the article were to be submitted to FAC, it should be preceeded by WP:PR. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)