This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for FA status. The article already has been through two GA reviews, and two Peer Reviews. I think one final review by a real hard-nosed editor should get it to that final plateau. The reviewer should be familiar with FA criteria and willing to nit-pick the article. Thanks, Noleander (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:Seems ok, but I'm not a really picky reviewer. I found & changed a few things, especially links, & no doubt others will too. The Daily Worker or the Daily... 5 cols in the refs seems too many. But in the absence of a run-through by someone really picky it is probably ready. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the improvements you made. I fixed the "Daily Worker" name; and the footnote columns are set to colwidth=20em, which is pretty standard. The article covers a rather complex topic, so I may ask one or two other editors to also review it before it goes to FAC. Thanks again. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, though. The last peer review (a very thorough one by the looks of it) only closed on 30 March (four days ago). Peer Review regulations state (in bold) that 14 days must elapse between reviews of the same article. So I'm sorry, this has to close. I'll still be happy to read the article and leave comments on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies ... I was not aware of the 14 day rule. I'll close it. If you could do a review on the Talk page, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
