Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've replaced the dead link and taken out the tag on that one. (Citation 142) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking against GA criteria[edit]
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Prose is reasonably well written, article complies with key MoS elements.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Article is adequately referenced, sources are RS, spotchecks show statements supported by cites, no OR
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Article provides a good overview of the subject
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- article is stable
- 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):
- Images have suitable licenses or non-free fair use rationales and captions
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good to see this article considerably improved since delisting over two years ago. Happy to list! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.