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

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):Does not go into depth b ( MoS (Med)): does not follow WP:LEAD

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): insufficient references

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): No

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Yes

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:

-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply