Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per comments below that a lot of work is needed to bring this article up to GA standards. Geometry guy 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Without inline references this does not fullfil the GA criteria.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Edit & Weak Keep It is a very nice article cleanly written, multiple media points as well as a broad approach to the topic. But it needs more references, there is not nearly enough references for that much information. It needs many more references before it will become a substantial GA or even FA. Renaissancee (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delist Although adding citations sounds simple, considering there are general references given, we are looking at adding possibly hundreds of citations, which is a huge amount of work. I do not think this can reasonably done in a short time frame (unless the original writers are going to make a dedicated attempt), so it should be delisted and resubmitted after the work is done. Yob Mod 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delist Unfortunately I must agree here with the GAR nominator and with Yobmod ( talk · contribs), there is simply too much work that would need to be done to address current issues to think that it could take place in a reasonable amount of time, particularly with regard to lack of cites throughout. Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply