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

Reviewer:Dom497 (talk·contribs)00:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – seeWP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is itreasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Quality of the article is good.

   B.MoS compliance forlead,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlists:

   Article complies with MoS.

2. Is itfactually accurate andverifiable?

   A.References to sources:

   Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   References support all statements included in the article.

   C.No original research:

   No original research found.

3. Is itbroad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects of the topic have been covered.

   B. Focused:

   Article remains focused throughout.

4. Is itneutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is itstable?

   Noedit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does itcontainimages to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images havefair use rationales:

   Image is tagged correctly.

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

   Appropriate image is used with a suitable caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!--Dom497 (talk)00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be fixed on the nominators part. I have fixed the minor issues within the the article.--Dom497 (talk)00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]