The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [1].
The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines.
Taprobanus (
talk)
12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Spot-check of a subsection at random:
Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008
Oppose:
Comments on images
Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus ( talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [1].
The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines.
Taprobanus (
talk)
12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Spot-check of a subsection at random:
Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008
Oppose:
Comments on images
Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus ( talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply