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

Reviewer: AmaryllisGardener ( talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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 fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

I fixed the only problem I found, ref ordering. Nice job! :) -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply