GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria - I was impressed with how the article dealt simply and capably with the controversial aspects of this topic and I couldn't find anything problematic. I'm suprised such a short, neat and well-put-together article took so long to get a review.
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria - I was impressed with how the article dealt simply and capably with the controversial aspects of this topic and I couldn't find anything problematic. I'm suprised such a short, neat and well-put-together article took so long to get a review.
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)