The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].
I created this article and brought it to DYK, where its notability was questioned. Since then, I have expanded the article and have brought it to one Peer Review and through the Good Article process, and I think it's now ready for an FA star. Gary King ( talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
–
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image review
Comment I do see this article in the list of GA's, but there's nothing in the milestones on the talk page about going through GAN; do you remember when it passed GAN? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Support. I thought about how long I wanted to hang back on the "comprehensiveness" issue, and I decided I'm not comfortable leaving the implication hanging in the air that I can't support yet because the article might be faulty. I really have no opinion on comprehensiveness; it ought to be a community decision. So I've written up a standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose by karanacs. Company articles are really hard to write well. This one seems to be a mix of overly detailed bits and areas where there is just not a lot of context. I'm also concerned that so much is sourced to primary sources.
Karanacs ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].
I created this article and brought it to DYK, where its notability was questioned. Since then, I have expanded the article and have brought it to one Peer Review and through the Good Article process, and I think it's now ready for an FA star. Gary King ( talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
–
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Image review
Comment I do see this article in the list of GA's, but there's nothing in the milestones on the talk page about going through GAN; do you remember when it passed GAN? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Support. I thought about how long I wanted to hang back on the "comprehensiveness" issue, and I decided I'm not comfortable leaving the implication hanging in the air that I can't support yet because the article might be faulty. I really have no opinion on comprehensiveness; it ought to be a community decision. So I've written up a standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose by karanacs. Company articles are really hard to write well. This one seems to be a mix of overly detailed bits and areas where there is just not a lot of context. I'm also concerned that so much is sourced to primary sources.
Karanacs ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply