Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: John F. Lewis (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This looks all very good. But actually, it is not that good. When the article was shortened to suit the rules, "further reading" (originally "references") was eraded, without controlling that the text was moved to the citations. So now the citations are incomplete. I will see when I can find the time to redo this work. (Guess if I am irritated ...) Also, I don't know what were the criteria for the material that is left under "References". Why did he choose this and exclude a lot of important reports? What does he actually know about all this material? Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]