Beginning review. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions

Attending to the quickfail criteria first:

• The article completely lacks reliable sources – there are a large number of sources overall but a few sections lack them and one thing I have noticed is that online sources predominate; I would prefer to see a majority of books used for sources but only a couple of books are quoted
• The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – no obvious POV problems
• There are correctly applied cleanup banners ... or similar tags – not applicable
• The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars – not applicable
• The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint – not applicable

I hope to carry out an in-depth read during the next couple of days. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

With flying colours. This is a very good article indeed. It is objective and informative. Well-written and laid out with just the right amount of useful and relevant supporting material.

I hope it will go on to FA in due course but I would just add a couple of pointers with that in mind. There are quite a few redlinks and these should either be turned blue, if possible, or else unlinked. The point I made above about the ratio of online sources being high may count at FA and I would advise you to try and find some of the references in books rather than on the web.

Apart from that, just keep checking the prose and phraseology to make sure it is completely objective but without making it wooden. I think some people go overboard on this but as long as no POV or so-called peacock or weasel words creep in, I can't see any problem. The article is a good length already and I wouldn't advise further expansion unless you think of something else that really shouldn't be left out.

Excellent work. Well done. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]