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

Reviewer: Anotherclown ( talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

• Citations: no errors found
• Disambiguations: Couple found (Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Defense, and one redirect which points back) - [3]
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4]
• Alt text: Images all have alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway) - [5]

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b ( MoS):

Overall no major issues and I believe I have corrected any typos.

The last para in the 'Post War' section is a little repetative though, as you use 'Nichols' to start the first three sentences... maybe reword a little? Anotherclown ( talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

•  Done. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

An excellent article IMO. Just the dab links and a few very minor prose tweaks required. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

•  Done. Fixed the dablinks. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Too easy, looks good to me. Happy to pass. Well done. Anotherclown ( talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply