The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan. Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are the improvements:
Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).
I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).
Good luck! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan. Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are the improvements:
Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).
I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).
Good luck! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply