| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to either expand it enough to make it eligible for a DYK (though 5x is a pretty lofty goal) or for good article status. I want to know exactly how the lead and "research" sections (mostly the latter) should be structured in order for either of these (mainly the successful GA nomination, since there are only 2 days left to hit the 29440 bytes needed for the DYK).
Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 02:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)