The article must be about a subject that belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary... Y
The article must be fairly complete. Usually, articles should be a few kilobytes long, although shorter pages may also be nominated.
The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.
The article must be filed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.Y
The article should be stable. It should not have many recent big changes or any current change wars.
All important terms should be linked and there must not be many red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs.
If there are any illustrations, they must be related to the article. They must also be properly labelled.Y
There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. Some of these templates are {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them. Y
Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications. Y
Reception is a bit messy. Made up of Critical response and Accolades
Critical response Alright but there are a lot of quotations that are sure to technically make the article more complex. Is it worth cutting down on those or paraphrasing where possible like was done with a couple of the reviews?
Accolades Big table with a lot of redlinks. Is all of this achievable? It is easier for the reader as we don't have to describe each and every award but is it worth it? Not sure right now. Removed.
