Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed before, but I am sure that still has small flaws that can be identified.
Thanks, Tartarus talk 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Before I noticed that you had only just started a peer review, I'd just looked at the article by pure chance. I have just removed some content that wasn't supported by the sources given, both of which I have access to. Also removed some conclusions which were a synthesis not mentioned in any of the sources cited.
Sadly, I don't think the article currently merits B, let alone A, or GA. although it can probably easily make B with some corrections, and GA with some work.
( Hohum @) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed before, but I am sure that still has small flaws that can be identified.
Thanks, Tartarus talk 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Before I noticed that you had only just started a peer review, I'd just looked at the article by pure chance. I have just removed some content that wasn't supported by the sources given, both of which I have access to. Also removed some conclusions which were a synthesis not mentioned in any of the sources cited.
Sadly, I don't think the article currently merits B, let alone A, or GA. although it can probably easily make B with some corrections, and GA with some work.
( Hohum @) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)