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

Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Good work here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good work. I can not think of much to say to further improve this article. I suppose it the wording might be too technical for some readers, but then again, the general topic might be the the thing that is too technical for those readers.

Tea with toast (話) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply