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

Nominator: Styyx (talk · contribs) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 00:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Styyx: I will be reviewing this article as part of the January 2025 backlog elimination drive.

Hi BigChrisKenney, thanks for the review. Are you sure you made changes to the intro as stated here? Your edit doesn't show any; please recheck. Styyx (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had made some changes that I reverteed before puiblishing, so, technically, there aren't any changes shown. I then didn't update my text here. BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good!

Good!

Good!

I made some edits you may wish to review.

I added a link you may wish to review.

I made an edit you may wish to review.

Good!

Good!

Made an edit that you may wish to review.

If you can find an update to the last sentence in that section, that would be best as it is now out of date. Source 62.

Updated.

Good!

You should pull information from that linked section and add it here.

Will write a few paragraphs soon (and probably split both into their own sections).

Checked every 3rd one. Looks good. Thanks for the translation of the article names.

All under creative commons or public domain.

Overall, there are some points that need to be addressed before I would give GA status to the article, but nothing more than an hour or less of work can fix. BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]