The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:35, 27 January 2010 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
In my estimation, this article has enough real-world information, creation, reception, etc. I also feel it meets the FA criteria. The article received a peer review, and I have addressed issues raised there. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- an odd name 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose On sources What makes these reliable? Some used multiple times or different refs.
RB88 ( T) 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
<discussion moved to talk page>
Alright: here goes. (Thank you for the clarification on your request by the way)
I hope this analysis helps. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 06:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply