# Talk:Tracy Thorne-Begland

This citation:

Steve Benen (January 15, 2012). "Tracy Thorne-Begland's long trip to the bench". MSNBC. Retrieved January 16, 2013.
only provides the votes in each house by quoting a report in the Richmond Times Dispatch. That should be the citation. Similarly, Benen doesn't tell us its a six-year term. The Richmond Times Dispatch does that. ~
We should also try to find a quality source -- not a blog -- for this: "A majority of the Virginia Senate GOP- 12 of 20 Senators walked out rather than vote for a gay judge." I think that's worth including if it can be properly documented. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree--I saw that but didn't want to include it just from the blog. Hopefully more thorough stories are up this morning. I'll check around in a minute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Didn't find a quality source for the GOP walkout, but mentioned the no-vote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Right. Re-reading that blog, it overplays the "walk out", when it's actually a respectful way of voting no. Wish we had a source for that Senate tradition of never voting No on a judgeship, just abstaining. But fine as is. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tracy Thorne-Begland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hekerui (talk · contribs) 17:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. Before I begin I noticed that his full name is given by the website of his court as "Tracy W. J. Thorne-Begland" so the other names given in the early life section seem to still be up to date and could be added to the lead. Hekerui (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for reviewing! I'll look forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this article. I give a list of things I noticed while reading, they are suggestions merely and I would like you to respond so I know they were considered.

Thanks for these very helpful suggestions and fixes. I agree with almost all; I've only commented if I disagree or wasn't able to make the change.
hatlink: "Tracey Thorne" should be "Tracey Thorn", her actual name

 Done
Lead

I don't think West Palm Beach is his "home town" when he lives in Virginia - home town does not strictly mean the place one grew up I'd say, this would work if the infobox used the "origin" parameter, but it does not
 Done
"to be elected" can be shortened to "elected"
 Done
"... in a jet combat squadron United States Navy." - "of the Navy"/"in the Navy"? or a "United States Navy jet combat squadron"
 Done
there are many specific squadron in List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons, do we have a way of knowing which he was in and whether it's among those?
Found the squadron with some searching, which led me to some additional news results not listed under Google News. I expanded the naval section accordingly. Thanks for this suggestion!
I don't think it is common knowledge what Nightline is, so I suggest describing it here as it is done later in the article body, as a news program
 Done
"identifying himself as gay" -> "identified himself as gay" so the tense is the same in the sentence
 Done
"... Thorne-Begland was nominated for an open seat ..." if we can answer "by whom" we should do it here, it does not make the lead too long
I don't think I encountered this information, unfortunately. I'm actually not 100% clear how this process works, and the news sites don't specify. If I encounter it, though, I'll clarify.
"... but the Virginia House denied him the position ..." - I suggest using the full name, Virginia House of Delegates, since this is the first time this appears in the article, and "denied" should be replaced by "rejected", the seat does not belong to Thorne-Begland
 Done
"judges then granted him " - we can give the date for "then"
 Done
the Houston Chronicle source cannot be found on the website anymore, should be replaced (this AP report is surely found somewhere else, I suggest a webcitation.org save for sources that may go away - or citing the report in a newspaper with the page number, which is the most lasting of all)
 Done. Other citations archived where possible, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Early life and military career

I can't find the Standford Law School source and the Palm Beach Post source, maybe the links changed or we deal with instances of linkrot? a question: 63, 197, 198 - are those page numbers?
Yes, these unfortunately appear to be dead links, and those are page numbers. I've marked them as such.
the Richmond Law article does not characterize his appearance as "in the middle of the 1992 presidential campaign" - I suggest abandoning that formulation, determining the middle of a many-year-campaign is not obvious
Changed to "during the campaign"
I think the Richmond Law source is sufficient for sourcing the whole sentence on TB's Nightline appearance, no need to be redundant
I moved this to the end of the sentence, but since the NYT is a far stronger source, I'd like to leave both.
"... called the policy then in effect ..." - "then in effect" is redundant, the context is clear
 Done
why is the note on Luther Ziegler working on discharge proceedings placed after the text describing his re-entry into active service? should be placed earlier, no?
 Done
"His assertion ..." - the NYT source does not contain information about the named test and the other source is dead so I assume the beginning references the earlier sentence about "Government-sanctioned discrimination"? this looks like OR to me (or at least flowery language) unless it's in the source I can't access. was the 1994 date in the Stanford source? I ask because the DADT wiki article sourced the policy start to 1993.
Let me consult with this paragraph's author about these issues, if she/he's still active. I'm not the one who added the Stanford source.
"His assertion" should be "His assertion that he was homosexual"
More to come. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is not particularly important. It was a bridge to re-establish the fact (somehow lost)  Thorne's assertion of homosexuality provoked the military's attempt to oust him, not anything else about his pubic statements.
In case it's deemed necessary to say something about DADT, I'll add this. The DADT entry needs a lot of work. The end of the policy is covered extensively while its origins are fudged. (It's on my longterm to-do list.) DADT was evolving at the same time as Thorne was making his public statements. His statements were in fact an attempt to influence that policy. DADT as a policy was mandated by a law passed in December 1993, though that law only detailed parts of the policy, leaving the rest to the Clinton administration and the Department of Defense. (You'll find some of this in the body of the DADT entry.) The Department of Defense then issued Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, outlining how the policy would operate in practice, and that directive went into effect in March 1994. The DoD initiated its case for removing Thorne under the 1993 law and the 1994 directive. I tried wherever possible to avoid simply identifying DADT and 1993 since the legislative/regulatory process was a bit more complicated. Note that the court decision in Thorne v. DoD makes this clear at the start by saying its about "the government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statutory and regulatory plan" -- the statutory as of December 1993 and the regulatory as of March 1994. [1]. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
when using newspaper sources I suggesting giving the page number so one can find the source if Google takes it offline (happened to me).
Settling for Web Citation for now.
 Done Added page number.
the NYT source "National News Briefs; Court Rejects Appeal Of Discharged Gay Flier" looks like a version of the AP source used in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the words are the same and it is shortened and dates from a day later, so I suggest replacing it with the AP source
 Done
the wikilink in "a suit in federal court to overturn" is a redirect, why not make it a direct link like the link to the "Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals"?
 Done
the SCOTUS decline is also sourced with The Virginian-Pilot, but I don't see why
 Done
where in the Richmond Law source is the 1998 graduation year mentioned?
The photo caption: "Tracy Thorne-Begland, L'98"
The RVA News source gives a contradictory date of 1997. I'm going with that for now over the photo caption.
I think this section should mention the rank he attained
 Done
Judicial nomination

the wikilinks for Democrat and Republican can be made to directly link to the party articles, not redirects
 Done As a side note, you should feel free to correct small errors like this yourself if you notice them; I'm happy to do the fixing, too, but surely it's taking longer to type some of these out than it would to correct them.
it's not mentioned who put forward TB's nomination, is there a source that gives that information so it can be added here?
Addressed this above--not that I'm aware of.
in the first sentence, why use the same source as citation in the sentence and at the end of it? merely placing it at the end is sufficient
 Done
"In the week leading up to the vote, ..." - the source is not this specific with the time that the Family Foundation of Virginia lobbied against TB, no?
 Done I think another source did say this, but it's not worth pinning down. Changed.
"He served for a time on the board of Equality Virginia ..." - this is placed at the end of the paragraph but the time of his board membership precedes the nomination, the source says "A former board member ..." (the Times Dispatch gives 2002 to 2006 as his time spent there), I suggest working this into the text differently
 Done
the McDonnel quotation is not in the given source, but in another from the same paper (but it only states that McDonnel's remarks came on May 14, 2012, not hours earlier)
Odd. Much of this article was written in the 24-48 hours after the initial controversy, and it's possible the news story itself was still in flux at that point. In any case,  Done.
"... critical of Thorne-Begland's lying to the Navy ..." - this makes it appear as though TB's lying is a fact - this is not in the source which only mentions their concerns with him speaking publicly at the time of DADT - I think I remember a source where TB stated that he didn't know about his sexual orientation at the time. I'm sure another source for allegations of lying and his response can be found.
Reworded.
"Delegates also stated ..." - that needs qualification, the other sources already showed it was not all delegates who thought this - I think that sentence can be sourced better with some of the other sources already given in the article, the Slate source is more vague than the others because it argues succinctly as an editorial does
Reworded to add "some". I think the Slate source covers this sufficiently, but I'd be fine with you switching or adding another source if you prefer.
why not put the source for the sentence ending in "well short of the 51-vote majority needed." at the end, the source also sources the needed majority, no?
 Done
I'm not sure the image of McDonnel improves the understanding of the article. the GA criteria don't demand images be included if they cannot be resonably obtained. Was an effort taken to find or ask for a free image of TB?
Okay, I removed it. I did some searches for free images of Thorne-Begland and didn't have any luck at the time.
Responses

Marshall's statement in the first sentence is not a response, in the source it looks like the statement preceded the vote - perhaps another statement from the Politico article would work as a response?
It is a response to the nomination, so I think it's ok.
the Bob Marshall wikilink can me made to link directly to his article instead of a redirect
 Done
"... homosexuality would make it impossible for him to judge cases impartially ..." maybe one should note that Marshall, from what I can see in the source, only applies this statement to cases with gay people - I think one can easily clarify that and shorten that sentence by rewriting it and summarizing the quote, otherwise there is much redundancy here
Clarified as "some cases". But I think the quotation is necessary to give Marshall, as the leading opponent of Thorne-Begland, his proper space/voice in the article.
the George Allen source is dead for me
Me, too. Marked as such.
"Mitt Romney's campaign" should be "Mitt Romney's presidential campaign" - we want articles to last, so being explicit is better
 Done
'Judgeship

"A month later, on June 14, ..." - the precise date given makes clear that a month passed, no need to mention it (the source does not actually note this time passed as unusual or special)
Most readers will not have the date of TB's rejection still in their memory at this point.
"... judges appointed him to the position the legislators had denied him." - "rejected him for" or something else would be better, only the legislature has the power to give judgeships, apparently
 Done
there were reactions to this appointment, perhaps they should be included
I didn't find this on a first pass through Highbeam and Google News--could you give me a link or two? I'm not doubting that they're out there, I must just be using the wrong search terms.
Oh, you mean the June 2012 appointment. Good idea--added.  Done
the source does not mention the end of the term, where is that from? (I only ask because it's not exactly six years, but maybe this is obvious in some way I can't see?)
It was added by an anon editor, so I can't speak to it. But it does seem accurate. It would make sense for the legislature to confirm candidates several weeks before their term formally started. His term would thus be from 1/31/13 to 1/31/19. If you feel this is controversial info, I can delete it and reduce to a simple mention of the six-year term, but it doesn't seem like the kind of controversial info the GA criteria require to be sourced.
 Done removed unsourced date
"Thorne-Begland was the first ..." - simple past tense implies he is dead or the term is expired, perhaps "is the first" or "has been the first"?
Hmmm. I'd say becoming the first was a deed that happened once, in the past. But I'm okay either way if you'd like to change it to "is". -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hekerui (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Looks like I didn't notice that the external link to the document redirects to an available version at http://dont.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/thorne-916FSupp1358.pdf I will have a look later. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response here; I didn't notice earlier that this had been updated. I'll try to get to these today or tomorrow. Thanks for the comments! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


### Court documents
I'm sorry to raise a new issue this late in review, but the discussion of the Stanford proceedings documents got me thinking about them freshly. I double-checked policy, and WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I'm going to work on removing the information sourced to the trial transcripts accordingly. I don't think anything drawn from them is terribly vital to the article, but just in case, I'll post a diff of my work here so that other editors can easily double-check my work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

All right, I think I've removed the material based solely on court documents. None of this information seems terribly controversial or worrying, btw, but I figure it's better to err on the side of caution with this.
Incidentally, I also discovered why some of the references here were a bit confused--when the court documents were added, one of them was named identically ("board") to a source already in the article. All of these footnotes thus displayed as Stanford, and the NYT story that some of them represented became invisible. The diff is here; if anybody would like to double-check my work, I'd appreciate it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


### Moving forward
You mentioned on my talk page that I should add a note about "what I expect". I guess I'll summarize by saying I think I addressed the above points in my responses on the 18th and I look forward to any responses you have. If there's anything that needs more work to meet the GA criteria, just let me know. Let me sincerely thank you again for your help and your good ideas above. I tried to respond to some comments as I went that I found particularly helpful, but thanks one last time for the whole of them, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Palm Beach Post source is still dead and no replacement has been located. That's a pity because it sources basic information. Can age and early life maybe be sourced from elsewhere? Hekerui (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Backup sources located and added for his hometown and approx. age. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


### Checking in
This one will have been open for a month tomorrow, so I wanted to check in and see if there's anything else you wanted done on this one--keep me posted. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Palm Beach Post source is dead. Please replace that source, find it archived or check a print version. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back to answer. I'm not sure I understand your "I won't pass an article with a dead link" policy, hence the compromise solution I offered above (alternately sourcing all the information to elsewhere, but retaining the original source for future reference). I'm guessing you didn't find that sufficient, since you never acknowledged my response.
To go forward, maybe you can point me to the policies you're looking at so we can better understand each other. Here's what I refer to when this comes up in reviews I'm conducting:
The GA criteria were specifically amended a few months back to state that dead links to bare urls were not verifiable sources, but that dead links with more identification remained legit: "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url." (Wikipedia:Good article criteria)
The explanatory essay linked from that page, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, lists "Demanding the removal of dead links" as a common error of GA reviewers, citing WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF.
WP:Linkrot states "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."
WP:DEADREF gives five steps to go through with a dead URL. This doesn't appear to fulfill your specific demands above, but what I've done for now is remove the URL as a "convenience URL", as this story can be presumed to have been originally printed on paper.
You seemed angry on my talk page before about my mentioning specific GA criteria, but I hope it gives you a sense of where I'm coming from. (After all, if we're not looking at whether this article meets the GA criteria, what are we doing here?) Anyway, if none of these policies convince you, let's ask for a second opinion about the dead links issue at WT:GAN. Sound fair? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I'd ask that you just give your final evaluation of the article the next time you look at this. If you think the article fails in its current state solely because of the dead url, I disagree, but that's fine. Given the pace at which our discussion is moving, however, I think renominating it and getting a fresh review seems like the fastest route to its revision and passage. This review is just moving too slowly, has become too adversarial, and seems to me too disconnected from the GA criteria for effective collaboration to be possible.
Sorry this didn't work out better. I do appreciate your improvements to the article--you've made a lot of good suggestions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This is another misunderstanding. I assumed the source gave a better pointer to TB's birth year (if the age in the articles is the only pointer, then giving 1967 may or may not be true) so it would be more than a placeholder. And I did not say remove the link, I asked that it be given a page number from the newspaper unless it's still available online, so it remains verifiable offline. I can't assume the story was in the paper with the birth year. I did not ask for information to be deleted or be supported by an online link. Hekerui (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. This misunderstanding stems from when you posted to my talk page stating, "I won't accept as GA an article with a dead link" and then when you posted again today that "As I said, I will only reassess this article if there are no dead links left".
I'm not sure how you expect me to get this page number; it won't surprise you to learn, I think, that my local library doesn't have back issues of the Palm Beach Post. Anyway, per WP:GACN, "Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement [quotation or contentious material] and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)." This doesn't meet either criterion, much less both. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I assumed that the source gave better info on the birth year and I didn't remember that from the online article, so I thought it would be prudent to at least ask that this is verifiable. Apparently you guessed the birth year from the ages in the other sources and the Palm Beach post source is only supplemental. That I didn't know. I did not try to be malicious. And I don't know about your local library and it doesn't matter for verifiability. Hekerui (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to go five rounds with you on this. I don't think your demands to further verify this dead link have anything to do with the GA criteria. I can't find a further copy of this article, but I don't think it's in this article's best interest to remove this source to fulfill an arbitrary demand. TTB's approximate birth year is not the sort controversial claim that requires citation at all under the GA criteria--but in any case, it's not guessing to say he was born circa 1967, just basic subtraction; he had to have been born within one year on either side.
If you want to fail the article for a dead link, okay, fail it. If you want to fail it for a new problem you thought of two hours ago after more than a month of review, okay, fail it. But I think one way or another, we've come to the end of the useful part of this review. For me, this discussion left both the GA criteria and collaboration in the dust three weeks ago when you started repeatedly posting that you wouldn't pass a GA with a dead link and would hold this review indefinitely until all dead links were fixed; it was rude, it was needlessly absolute, and it was a violation of policy. My efforts at a compromise solution met with no discussion until today. If there are further issues that need to be addressed here, I'd prefer to address them with a fresh reviewer.
Despite this disagreement, I appreciate the many productive suggestions you've made for this article, particularly in some of the copyedits and suggesting that I look up TTB's squadron name, which led to several helpful new sources. It's definitely improved as a result of the review, even if it's been a rocky road. So, sincerely, thanks; sorry we couldn't come to a better resolution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
My library does have access to archives of the Palm Beach Post, and the relevant article is on page 1A. Not that it matters. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Clearly, in retrospect, I should have gone to the resource request page with this. The Nexis link should do for now, but it'll be good to have the page number in this talk page archive as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tracy Thorne-Begland/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
As I promised to give a "second view" on the first nomination and that review closed before I got there, I thought that I'd better sign up for this second nomination. I should have some comments by the weekend, but I'm sorry there will be nothing for today. Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. =) Thanks for taking it on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've done a quick read of this article and just on that basis it appears to be at or about GA-level. I've also used Checklinks and it showed that all external links were "live", but I've not checked any of them yet.
I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at the Early life and military career section and finishing with the WP:Lead, and check it against WP:WIAGA. This is likely to take a day or so, but I'd like to have this review finished by Wednesday. Pyrotec (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Early life and military career -
The first two paragraphs are good and compliant: the first paragraph is about early life and career, the second is about "comming out" on TV.
In contrast, the third starts with a one-sentence statement about his first discharge hearing and his testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. However, there seems to be an obvious gap: someone high must have seen the TV comming out and decided to "sack him", but that is completely missing from the article - we've done from TV to discharge hearing, other than "... discussion with his peers following his television disclosure was "a nonevent"", with nothing about events in between. Is there anything in the public domain that could be used to fill this gap?
I'll try to add a clearer transition here. Discharge for armed forces member was automatic pre-DADT, so events led naturally from the confession to the hearing. I think I have some sources that can explain the timeline more clearly, so will try to expand a bit from them tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Note: having read some more. I think the answer can be found in ref 12, which states: "He appeared on TV .... Days later the Navy notified Thorpe of discharge proceedings... ".Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph has one further inconsistency in "naming": it starts off with a hearing and a committee, but it then states: "He told the panel ..... During the hearing, ...". What does the "panel" refer to, its presumably either the hearing or the committee?
Considering the fourth and fifth paragraphs together, it is unclear how many times he was discharged and reinstated: having read the citations, it looks the fifth paragraph was an "amplification" of what appears in the fourth paragraph, not another cycle.
I think Stanford's legal center has some documentation on these cases. I don't have time tonight, but what I hope to do is construct for myself a timeline of the relevant hearings etc. sometime tomorrow, and then put a more logical narrative together for the article based on those sources. I agree that it's a bit confusing as written. (I'm confused just trying to remember it.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I've cleared up the concerns in this section. The confusion stems from my misunderstanding of the 1994 New York Times article in which a Naval board recommended his discharge, and mis-interpreting this as a discharge. So it appears he was discharged twice, rather than thrice. Let me know if the timeline now seems to flow more sensibly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Judicial nomination -
unnamed first subsection -
As per my earlier comments, there is another noticeable gap: at the end of the previous section the article states: " He pursued a degree at the University of Richmond School of Law, graduating in 1997." and now its at "In 2012, when Thorne-Begland had served 12 years as a prosecutor ....". Is there any citable material covering this missing 15 years, of law practice?
Not much that I can find. This source appears to have been written in 2011 or so [2] but (pre-nomination) still only covers his military wrangles. Sources written during the nomination fight simply mention his 12 yrs as a prosecutor. Since he never became the city's lead attorney (and it's not a big city to begin with), he probably never got any high-profile enough cases to get significant coverage, is my guess. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant.
Responses -
This subsection appears to be compliant.
Judgeship -
This subsection appears to be compliant.
Personal life -
This section appears to be compliant.
WP:Lead -
This appears to adequately summarise the contents of the body of the article. Note: the article is quite short, and this is reflected in the Lead. However, I regard the Lead as being compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and WP:Lead.
At this stage, I'm putting the review "On Hold", I would expect to be awarding the article GA-status once the outstanding "points" have been resolved / addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll start on these improvements now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your concerns, but please let me know if you'd like to see anything else on these subjects--glad to keep working on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done a minor expansion of the Lead: I'm not too good at American-English, so if it does not read right, you are welcome to change it.
I'm happy now with the article, so I'll "pass" it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Not applicable - no images.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Not applicable - no images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

In the light of improvements /clarifications carried out during the period of this review, and the one before, I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a "fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the suggestions as well as your saving me another three months' wait on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)