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

Nominator: PenangLion ( talk · contribs) 04:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 ( talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey there! I'll be reviewing this article. ¹⁴¹ Pr -_{\ contribs/}- 15:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a ( reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: - Article seems to be stable, I don't see anything wrong with it.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Initial comments

Article looks good at a glance, I'll have a closer review in a bit. ¹⁴¹ Pr -_{\ contribs/}- 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey...are there any further comments for this review? gavre (al. PenangLion) ( talk) 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• There is some sandwiching going on in the construction section - there are just a lot of images in general. Consider removing some or grouping them together.