The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article (self-nomination) for featured article because I feel it now fulfills all the FA criteria since it's last attempt. It has since gone through a comprehensive peer review and countless edits to get it up to scratch. As an article, I believe it represents some of Wikipedia's best work, particularly within the sub-field of Australian rules football articles Boomtish ( talk) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Weak Oppose - I wish that I didn't have to do this, because it's good to have something original here. However, the fact that there aren't any top-quality models shows. These are almost all from the first couple sections, and lead me to believe that this isn't ready.
After this initial reading, I feel like the article at least needs a thorough copy-edit, and am on the verge of suggesting withdrawal and resubmission. That decision is up to you, but there's no way I can support it in this state. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. (Might I add, though, that the images are nearly identical. I think the article needs only 1 or 2 - not 3.) Awadewit ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Prose concerns. I would recommend a third party copyedit. Some examples:
-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry. This is an interesting, well-researched article and I enjoyed reading it but there are problems with the writing. I would like to see it achieve FA status but it needs copy-editing. Here are some examples:
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article (self-nomination) for featured article because I feel it now fulfills all the FA criteria since it's last attempt. It has since gone through a comprehensive peer review and countless edits to get it up to scratch. As an article, I believe it represents some of Wikipedia's best work, particularly within the sub-field of Australian rules football articles Boomtish ( talk) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments -
Weak Oppose - I wish that I didn't have to do this, because it's good to have something original here. However, the fact that there aren't any top-quality models shows. These are almost all from the first couple sections, and lead me to believe that this isn't ready.
After this initial reading, I feel like the article at least needs a thorough copy-edit, and am on the verge of suggesting withdrawal and resubmission. That decision is up to you, but there's no way I can support it in this state. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. (Might I add, though, that the images are nearly identical. I think the article needs only 1 or 2 - not 3.) Awadewit ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Prose concerns. I would recommend a third party copyedit. Some examples:
-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose - sorry. This is an interesting, well-researched article and I enjoyed reading it but there are problems with the writing. I would like to see it achieve FA status but it needs copy-editing. Here are some examples:
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply