This article seems to have stabilized quite a bit and has had a peer review. I've given the article a decent copyedit, fixing up a couple of loose ends, and adding details to the summary section, so I think the next step is to nominate for Good article status. There's still a bit more to do for Featured status, mainly there's still some sections that need photos, but I think it meets the criteria for being a good article presently. Dr. Cash 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Could be further improved with a few more inline citations, considering the amount of prose. PhoenixTwo 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)