I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork✔Tea time
Article has reference section. Currently the article names sources, and then transcribes long quotes from the source. It would be more appropriate and useful to take advantage of legally scanned copies, such as those provided on Google Books. SilkTork✔Tea time14:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On hold for the standard seven days to allow for above issues to be addressed or discussed. I'm always open to extending that time as long as progress or communication is being made. SilkTork✔Tea time17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that all significant contributors have been notified. We are halfway through the seven days and no work has been done on the issues raised (edits made on the article have not addressed the issues), and no contact made here or on my talkpage. This is heading towards a fail unless somebody takes the matter in hand. SilkTork✔Tea time14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will close this as not listed tomorrow unless there is some attempt made to work on the issues, or someone contacts me to tell me they are willing to do the work needed. SilkTork✔Tea time11:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]