this page is terrible. the first few sections seem like "opinion" and that seemliness is backed up by the fact that the first linked reference is 1/3 of the way down the page. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia seem like BS, locked or not.
Thanks.
The lead section doesn't require citations for most types of statements per our policy at WP:LEAD. Since this information is detailed in the body, it's redundant to cite it in the summary atop the article. Other than that, the talk page might be a better venue for your comments.
Since you're showing a fair amount of hostility to begin with, I'm asking that this review simply be closed and a more experienced user take over (I notice it's your first edit). I'm happy to hear any feedback you have on the article, though--thanks for the input, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Khazar2; though I have had little to do with the development of this article, your input has little substance to it, and you do not appear to have sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make a fair assessment. Your feedback on articles is always welcome of course, but you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia more before assuming the task of reviewing Good Article nominations. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
The "reviewer" appears to be a troll, based on the "reviewer" using hyperbolic language and his apparent misunderstanding or ignorance of the MOS. A real reviewer is needed. SMP0328. (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've posted a note to WT:GAN asking for input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm closing this review and renominating with original nominator and timestamp. IP users can't review nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
