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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I disambiguation fixed. diff

Link rot: no dead links found

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   The artcile is reasonably well written, and complies sufficiently with the MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   Refernces to reliable sources, check out ans upport cited statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): {{GAList/check|y

   The article sufficiently covers the subject, without going into un-necessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   Two images used, correctly tagg and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, this is good to go. I will list this as a good article. Areas for future development if you wish to go to FAC: A wider range of sources needed, prose could be improved to flow better.Perhaps a little more about world-wide reception. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 12:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply