Article would benefit from a copyedit; perhaps the nominator could find someone from the WP:GOCE to perform such an edit. Article also fails the Manual of Style on account of the lead section being too short, though both these points are easily rectifiable.
Lead improved, I see.
I have given it a bit of a copyedit myself (I found some dreadful language that I am embarrassed to have written) and requested at the GOCE for someone else to also do so. I will definitely go over it again but I'm pretty busy until late next week so it will be a few days before I get the chance. James086Talk14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources, though I am yet to perform the requisite series of spot-checks.
Spot-checks now done; mostly fine but could someone point out to me where in cites #7 or #16 "the shallow key-press of the metal keyboard" is referred to?
Anandtech is to cite Asus running out of time, I removed Trusted Reviews and instead put the engadget review of the UX31A that says "That machine was one of our favorites in what was still a budding category, though we took issue with the shallow keyboard and uncomfortable touchpad."diff. I must have linked to the wrong citation. James086Talk14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers all the major points with little superfluous material, albeit in a rather unexciting fashion; it would be good to draw out more of the common themes and hence pass over the actual chronology of models faster.
Under the utilitarian object doctrine, all images are not derivatives of the original designs, and, as such, are okay. The number of images is adequate.