"

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  
 
B. MoS compliance: 
 {{#if:The article is not fully according to WP:MOS.  For instance, the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to summarize the body of the article; instead, it presents information that is not otherwise discussed in the article, namely ""Peter Hitchens argues in his book that his brother's verdict on religion is misguided, and that faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism.""  The Spectator quote is also somewhat questionable  a summary of the critical reception is certainly appropriate for the lead, but a single quote that includes a few words of puffery is less so.|The article is not fully according to WP:MOS.  For instance, the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to summarize the body of the article; instead, it presents information that is not otherwise discussed in the article, namely ""Peter Hitchens argues in his book that his brother's verdict on religion is misguided, and that faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism.""  The Spectator quote is also somewhat questionable  a summary of the critical reception is certainly appropriate for the lead, but a single quote that includes a few words of puffery is less so.|}}
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  
 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
 
C. No original research: 
 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  
 
B. Focused: 
 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
 
Is it stable?
 No edit wars, etc: 
 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyrigh