GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown ( talk) 07:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article so far but unfortunatley I believe that there is still quite a way to go. Indeed IMO this meets the GA quick-fail criteria as large sections are unreferenced and therefore fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. As such, given the amount of work required I am going to have to fail this rather than place it on hold. However, I do believe that this could be brought up to GA standard in time and I would encourage the editors to add the citations required and then request a peer review before putting it up for another GA nomination. In order to assist with this I have added {{cn}} tags where inline citations are required. Please let me know if you require any further guidance with this. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)