GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Starting first read-through. Looks very fine at first sight. Will report back in the next two days or so. Tim riley ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No serious problems with this article, which is clearly of GA standard, in my judgment. A few minor points before I observe the formalities:
I'll be away for a week or so from tomorrow, with very limited internet access. I hope to see the few points, above, addressed by then (of which only the tag is more than minor), enabling me to promote the article. Happy editing! Tim riley ( talk) 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The only substantive point in my earlier comments (the "by whom" tag) has been attended to, and as there are no further queries of any crucial importance, I am passing the article as GA. I see it has been much vandalised lately but that is scarcely the same as edit warring. The prose is not, perhaps, of FA standard at all points, but it is certainly of GA quality.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A most interesting article. It was a pleasure to review it.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Starting first read-through. Looks very fine at first sight. Will report back in the next two days or so. Tim riley ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No serious problems with this article, which is clearly of GA standard, in my judgment. A few minor points before I observe the formalities:
I'll be away for a week or so from tomorrow, with very limited internet access. I hope to see the few points, above, addressed by then (of which only the tag is more than minor), enabling me to promote the article. Happy editing! Tim riley ( talk) 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The only substantive point in my earlier comments (the "by whom" tag) has been attended to, and as there are no further queries of any crucial importance, I am passing the article as GA. I see it has been much vandalised lately but that is scarcely the same as edit warring. The prose is not, perhaps, of FA standard at all points, but it is certainly of GA quality.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A most interesting article. It was a pleasure to review it.