I will review the article. Give me a few hours to read it over a few times. -- Patrick ( talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this a few times, I have to say this is a very good article. So far I only have a few comments. More, I think, are coming. I have not reviewed the sources yet.
Cheers. -- Patrick ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk and Patrick, I'll be happy to give this a quick FAC-level copyedit if you like; let me know. I copyedited this article once before. The first think I see is that the lead is just a tiny bit too short per LEAD. I've had bad luck with trying to guess which facts in an article were most important to the editor; if you guys want to suggest what's important, I'll think about how to add it. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Great article. I think this article should be put forward soon for FA status. Well done. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I will review the article. Give me a few hours to read it over a few times. -- Patrick ( talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this a few times, I have to say this is a very good article. So far I only have a few comments. More, I think, are coming. I have not reviewed the sources yet.
Cheers. -- Patrick ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk and Patrick, I'll be happy to give this a quick FAC-level copyedit if you like; let me know. I copyedited this article once before. The first think I see is that the lead is just a tiny bit too short per LEAD. I've had bad luck with trying to guess which facts in an article were most important to the editor; if you guys want to suggest what's important, I'll think about how to add it. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Great article. I think this article should be put forward soon for FA status. Well done. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)