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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looked at talk page, noted presence of WP:GOCE, no issues there.
2. Upon inspection of talk page archives, not even any major conflicts or older issues there.
3. Took a look at recent article edit history, seeing good deal of copyediting going on with help from WP:GOCE, no issues here.

Stability is passing now, on to image check. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. File:ChildhoodsEnd(1stEd).jpg = Fair use image, appropriate rationale on image page.
2. File:Barrage balloons over London during World War II.jpg = Image on Wikimedia Commons, checks out okay.

Image usage is passing now, on to rest of GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 27, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Well written indeed, I see that there's been a good deal of copyediting from WP:GOCE, great job.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is thorough, however going forward towards stages of peer reviewing involving input from responses after posts to WikiProject talk pages, I'd suggest expanding the Reception section a bit more, and adding some more detail to Adaptations, and also creating a section for the Themes as commented upon by secondary sources. Yeah, reflecting more, it really could use a separate standalone Themes section going forward, and also expansion of Reception sect. Not enough to hurt it for GA quality assessment now, but certainly a strong suggestion for future quality improvement.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Stability passes, as per above.

6. Images?: Images pass, as per above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]