Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've now read through the article a couple of times and it appears to be at or about GA-level. As such, I will not be "quick failing" this article. I will now continue with a detailed review. As this is a comprehensive article, its going to take several days to review it. Its also worth noting, that at this stage I will be mostly reporting "problems". This does not imply that the article is bad: the first stage is to identify problems (and if necessary get them resolved) and the second stage is the review comments and sentencing. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
....to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
....to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
....Sorry for the delay; I will restart the review tomorrow. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An apparently-comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced, article.
I'm awarding this arrticle GA-status.
Congratulations on producing a comprehensive well-illustrated and referenced article. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)