I've reviewed the article, paying specific attention to grammar and fixing some errors here and there. Overall, referencing is well done and thorough, the article is well-written (impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker), and with some automatized fixes that I did it seems to conform to the manual of style. The article is broad enough, although a minor point might be the lack of a background section introducing us to the more important prior events in Georgia's history (some of those are mentioned in the article separately). As a whole, it covers the topic perfectly, is stable and well-illustrated. I saw nothing that can be perceived as POV either.
Congrats! Todor → Bozhinov 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article, paying specific attention to grammar and fixing some errors here and there. Overall, referencing is well done and thorough, the article is well-written (impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker), and with some automatized fixes that I did it seems to conform to the manual of style. The article is broad enough, although a minor point might be the lack of a background section introducing us to the more important prior events in Georgia's history (some of those are mentioned in the article separately). As a whole, it covers the topic perfectly, is stable and well-illustrated. I saw nothing that can be perceived as POV either.
Congrats! Todor → Bozhinov 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)