The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].
Vithoba was here in October, but failed, as I understand it, due to concerns about some references and the prose quality. The article had a copyedit. The disputed references were removed, new ones added. In the process, the improvement of the article was aided by the reviews of wiki-users, which can be read on the article talk. So since the concerns in the earlier FAC are addressed IMO and the talk reviews - weighting the article against FA criteria - taken into consideration, Vithoba is ready to face a FAC again. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I support the nomination for FA. Its a well written and well sourced article worthy of FAC. Kudos to Redtiger and Alastair.-- Anish ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I also reviewed this in great detail on its talk page and my concerns were addressed there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I had supported in the earlier nomination as well and was involved to some extent in copy edits and general suggestions at that time. I have read it again and see significant improvement in prose, citations etc. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support A very thorough and well-written article—it meets the highest standard for Wikipedia articles. Priyanath talk 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Image licenses look fine. The selective color manipulation in File:Palkhi 2008.jpg lowers its encyclopedic value. I recommend converting it to monochrome. The captions in the article for File:Palkhi 2008.jpg and File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg are unverifiable. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review All images have verifiable licenses, but several need expanded descriptions to allow users to understand what they are.
Adding these descriptions will be very helpful to readers - thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].
Vithoba was here in October, but failed, as I understand it, due to concerns about some references and the prose quality. The article had a copyedit. The disputed references were removed, new ones added. In the process, the improvement of the article was aided by the reviews of wiki-users, which can be read on the article talk. So since the concerns in the earlier FAC are addressed IMO and the talk reviews - weighting the article against FA criteria - taken into consideration, Vithoba is ready to face a FAC again. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I support the nomination for FA. Its a well written and well sourced article worthy of FAC. Kudos to Redtiger and Alastair.-- Anish ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I also reviewed this in great detail on its talk page and my concerns were addressed there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I had supported in the earlier nomination as well and was involved to some extent in copy edits and general suggestions at that time. I have read it again and see significant improvement in prose, citations etc. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support A very thorough and well-written article—it meets the highest standard for Wikipedia articles. Priyanath talk 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Image licenses look fine. The selective color manipulation in File:Palkhi 2008.jpg lowers its encyclopedic value. I recommend converting it to monochrome. The captions in the article for File:Palkhi 2008.jpg and File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg are unverifiable. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review All images have verifiable licenses, but several need expanded descriptions to allow users to understand what they are.
Adding these descriptions will be very helpful to readers - thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply