Okay, I'll begin a review now and make straightforward copyedits as I go. (Hey I thought this looked familiar...here we go again) Please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below:
Casliber (
talk·contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The two articles were split because the history bit was so long (not to mention unreferenced, and a copyright infringement). It's somewhat slimmer now, and could go back. Here's a
test merge. However, I note that this comes to 65k in size, and
WP:SIZERULE suggests that such an article should be divided.
U+003F? 10:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Ahaa, no they are two different measurements - the readable prose size is only 17 kB (2908 words) - you can put the tool in your monobook here at
User:Dr pda/prosesize.js - once loaded you get a "page size" in your toolbox in hte left hand column. Very useful. So this could be double the size and not need splitting. I think a single merged article is a major improvement and something that could with some polish and review end up at FAC. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk·contribs) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Great, thanks for the pointer. A couple of questions: can I just perform a merge now, or does it have to be put up for discussion? And: can the GA review carry on, or would it have to be restarted after such a big change to the article?
U+003F? 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Scratch the questions, I've fired ahead and merged the two articles.
U+003F? 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Right then, on to business....some comprehensiveness queries first.
You have both "Superwhites" and "Super whites" in the article, choose one (like occurs in sources) and align all the spelling.