This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think we need an outside opinion on what the article should be rated.
Thanks, Aaroncrick ( talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I would say this article is still probably at C-class, although it is getting very close to B-class. Here are some issues that should be addressed to get the article up to B-class:
References:
MOS:
I haven't done a full review of the prose, but the comments above should help propel you over the hump to B-class, and then down the road to GA-class if you are looking at that. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this review. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think we need an outside opinion on what the article should be rated.
Thanks, Aaroncrick ( talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I would say this article is still probably at C-class, although it is getting very close to B-class. Here are some issues that should be addressed to get the article up to B-class:
References:
MOS:
I haven't done a full review of the prose, but the comments above should help propel you over the hump to B-class, and then down the road to GA-class if you are looking at that. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this review. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)