The article was promoted by Raul654 18:42, 21 February 2009 [1].
Connecticut was a battleship that was obsolete soon after her commissioning; however, she was still the flagship of the Great White Fleet. This fleet returned to the U.S. on 22 February 1909. Do you see why I am nominating this? :) Any and all comments are welcome. Special thanks go to (in no particular order): Maralia and Bellhalla for copyediting and formatting, La Pianista and User:Milkbreath for copyediting, and TomStar81 for writing the lead. Thanks guys (and gals :)! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
←I haven't seen anyone else raise this objection at any of the FACs that I have initiated (nine from the list above). To me, that seems more of a site-wide consensus than merely a WikiProject consensus. If it is that much of a concern to you, I would suggest that you initiate the changes. From my view, consensus strongly supports the current date style. — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
←Please don't think I'm trying to trivialize or minimize your objections. Both copyright violations and plagiarism are legitimate reasons to oppose an FAC. However, In this case, from what evidence you have presented there is clearly not a copyright violation. (I struck part of my previous comment. I see now that you were giving an example from the version referenced in your earlier post.) — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Image review as follows:
Comments from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Dabs look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Raul654 18:42, 21 February 2009 [1].
Connecticut was a battleship that was obsolete soon after her commissioning; however, she was still the flagship of the Great White Fleet. This fleet returned to the U.S. on 22 February 1909. Do you see why I am nominating this? :) Any and all comments are welcome. Special thanks go to (in no particular order): Maralia and Bellhalla for copyediting and formatting, La Pianista and User:Milkbreath for copyediting, and TomStar81 for writing the lead. Thanks guys (and gals :)! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
←I haven't seen anyone else raise this objection at any of the FACs that I have initiated (nine from the list above). To me, that seems more of a site-wide consensus than merely a WikiProject consensus. If it is that much of a concern to you, I would suggest that you initiate the changes. From my view, consensus strongly supports the current date style. — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
←Please don't think I'm trying to trivialize or minimize your objections. Both copyright violations and plagiarism are legitimate reasons to oppose an FAC. However, In this case, from what evidence you have presented there is clearly not a copyright violation. (I struck part of my previous comment. I see now that you were giving an example from the version referenced in your earlier post.) — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Image review as follows:
Comments from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Dabs look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply