The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.
Self-nomination The article has passed GA, and has had a peer review, and feel that those that have helped edited it have made it a high-quality article. MASEM 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Article has good content, plenty of supporting facts and references, and seems to be on track thoughout. Happy Editing, Dusti talk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment The opening sentence of the third paragraph is horribly clumsy and confusing. Please do not let this terrible writing into a featured article. (This is probably not the proper place to post this comment). -- Xyzzyplugh ( talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Everything flows, but I question why Aperture Science needs its own long, unsourced section. David Fuchs ( talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notes: Please explain the reliability of this source:
Also, review WP:PUNC throughout: ... that he "[could not] think of any criticism for [Portal]," ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Cyger ( talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply