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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   • There are quite a few red links in the article. If these all have a good chance of being made into articles, then leave them, but if they don't, please de-link them.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have completed everything except for a full review of the prose. I'm being called away from my computer right now, so I won't be able to finish it right away, but I should be able to complete it later tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest. I'll drop a note here when I'm finished. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I've finished the prose review, and didn't find anything to add, so I'm going to put the article on hold to wait for a response to the one comment above. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I have gone back and removed some of the redlinks. Dough4872 ( talk) 02:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply