GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears well written, comprehensive and well referenced. I have only a few comments which are listed below. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following reference links appear to be dead:

Otherwise, the article is in good shape. I will place it on hold to allow you to address these issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I replaced all the dead links, yes you dabbed those correctly :), and none of the refs are in all caps, though, their official title involves some words to be in caps, which is how the publisher wrote them.--TRUCO 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the publisher has it in all caps, I believe you should reduce the caps in the references. (Like FAC would make you do it.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: