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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

   Have performed a minor copyedit to remove MoS. The lead need to be extended considerably, probably fivefold. Remember to mention all parts of the article; the lead is to summarize, not introduce, the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The bibliography section should cite books within {{ cite book}}. All-caps titles should be converted to lower caps—all caps is a matter of typography and not grammar or spelling. The first paragraph under "Death of Adrian IV" should be referenced. Ref 25 and 35 should be in the {{ cite web}} template.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing on hold until the addressed matters have been seen to. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to express them here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it's all done now. CarlosPn 22 Oct 2008 15:35 CET

Congratulations with a Good Article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply