The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009 [1].
I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the FA criteria. The article passed GA in July after going through a peer review. The article is fully comprehensive, containing all relevant, reliably sourcable information that appears to be available, and all content is completely and reliably sourced. I believe it is well-written, having not changed substantially since its PR and GA going overs. Structure follows the Film MoS with minor modifications to allow for its semi-documentary nature, and all citations are consistent (using the various cite web/news/etc templates). -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments -
There are more issues like this, where a few things aren't really clear to an unfamiliar reader. Gary King ( talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Gary King ( talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Image review: single non-free image with appropriate rationale, no issue. Jappalang ( talk) 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) I won't lean one way or the other because I don't have time to read the whole article right now.
More later. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply