Is it:  
 (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;  
 : I believe it is well-written. 
 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;  
 : It is comprehensive: it covers all the main periods of logic from antiquity to the present day. 
 (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;  
 : The main materials for this article were from my extensive logic library.  I relied extensively on Kneale and Kneale's history of logic. 
 (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and  
 : the topic of logic is, I hope, entirely neutral and bias-free. 
 (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.  
 : there has never been an edit war over this article 

 It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—  
 (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;  
 : The lead summarises exactly what is in the main sections. 
 (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and  
 : yes 
 (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (Smith 2007, p. 1.) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p.  
 : Citations are mostly Harvard style (I would appreciate help on this though) 
 Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  
 : The article uses summary style throughout.