GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- I performed a copyedit, and the article now complies with the MoS, and reads satisfactory. The lead is not fully satisfactory. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce it. There are many things mentioned in the lead that are not mentioned in the rest of the article.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Most of the article is utterly unreferenced. Only the certifications and some detail are covered. The article needs much more references.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- There is nothing in the article (save the lead) that decribes the manufacturing, marketing and production of the item. Things I would like to know include: when did design start, when did production start, who produces it, how much does it cost, how many have been sold, etc. Of course, much of this is mentioned in the lead, but it also needs to be in the main text. Remember: the lead is completely redundant to the body. However, I am concerned about the length. For articles of this length, authors must make plausible that there is no more to write on the subject.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Free images should should be uploaded to the Commons. I have done this.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
