GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk • contribs • count) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a good article with all the main points but I'm not convinced the quality of the prose is up to scratch. A lot of its reads like a story/narrative rather than encyclopedic writing. I'll request a second opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Articles looks to have improved. Contains a lot of informationbut I feel if it is ever to make FA the prose needs further improvement. Satisfies GA criteria though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk • contribs • count) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a good article with all the main points but I'm not convinced the quality of the prose is up to scratch. A lot of its reads like a story/narrative rather than encyclopedic writing. I'll request a second opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Articles looks to have improved. Contains a lot of informationbut I feel if it is ever to make FA the prose needs further improvement. Satisfies GA criteria though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)