Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi there again, (it looks like it's unfashionable to review military GAs at the moment!) I am happy to tell you that once again this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement (its nice to see that pointers I gave on previous reviews have been taken up on nominated articles, I quite often see the opposite). Listed below is information on how the article fared against the
Wikipedia:good article criteria, with a suggestion for future development. This is not required to achieve GA standard, but might help in future A-class or FAC review process.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi there again, (it looks like it's unfashionable to review military GAs at the moment!) I am happy to tell you that once again this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement (its nice to see that pointers I gave on previous reviews have been taken up on nominated articles, I quite often see the opposite). Listed below is information on how the article fared against the
Wikipedia:good article criteria, with a suggestion for future development. This is not required to achieve GA standard, but might help in future A-class or FAC review process.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)