The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Second review also found no issues. Furthermore, no one has expressed any significant concerns with the article - certainly nothing that would necessitate a delist. Anything else can be resolved through normal editing processes, or at FAC if that's in the cards. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)17:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll perform a de facto GA review here. I am familiar with @
Another Believer's work and have little question of the article quality. I applaud
User:An anonymous username, not my real name for their diligence in catching that review so quickly.
Copy-vios- Only quotes flagged on Earwig. Random spot-checking finds nothing.
Sourcing- nothing of note, fixed some missing citation info
Images- descriptions could be more specific, image rights are in order
Prose-
MOS:CITELEAD should be removed, all other issues I cleaned up on my own.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.