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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose and compliance with MoS fine, I made a few minor copy-edits. [1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   References are to Rs, all check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fine

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:

   OK, I think this adequately meets the WP:GACR, so I am happy to list this. I am sorry that you have had to wait do long. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks you! -- Muhandes ( talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply