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

Reviewer: Jaldous1 ( talk · contribs) 19:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written. I performed a grammar check and copy-edited a few areas.-- Jaldous1 ( talk) 19:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   Noted.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Good use of notable and verifiable sources.-- Jaldous1 ( talk) 22:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage. It passes this requirement. -- Jaldous1 ( talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. It passees this requirement. The book is controversial and the article covers both sides well. -- Jaldous1 ( talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable. There was one issue raised which article author addressed.-- Jaldous1 ( talk) 22:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. Yes. -- Jaldous1 ( talk) 22:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass: