Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. I have also performed an extensive copyedit on the article in order to bring the general prose standard up to GA requirements. Well done on the work so far.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to edit the text and give the review! I prefer that you be as hard as possible, because it will allow the article to be brought to standards for a planned upcoming A-Article review and further in the future a FAC. Thank you! Now, on to your points -
Hopefully, this corrects some of the issues. Again, thank you! JonCatalan ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. I have also performed an extensive copyedit on the article in order to bring the general prose standard up to GA requirements. Well done on the work so far.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to edit the text and give the review! I prefer that you be as hard as possible, because it will allow the article to be brought to standards for a planned upcoming A-Article review and further in the future a FAC. Thank you! Now, on to your points -
Hopefully, this corrects some of the issues. Again, thank you! JonCatalan ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)