The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:55, 26 July 2008 [1].
On March 28th, I posted this note to the talk page noting that the article no longer met the FA criteria: "This article really needs a work over to bring it inline with the MOS and with WP:LEAD. It was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago, but if it were back up for FA, it would fail miserably. Anyone willing to tackle the needed MOS and lead fixes?" The note went unanswered until May 15th, when the original primary contributer who put it in the current format only argued that his format was better. No substantive work was done to bring it inline, nor any discussion on other issues. As I feel more than enough time has been given to do anything at all, I'm now bringing here for formal review. I feel the article fails the following criteria:
-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Lots of early comments. Not sure what the status is now. Marskell ( talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:55, 26 July 2008 [1].
On March 28th, I posted this note to the talk page noting that the article no longer met the FA criteria: "This article really needs a work over to bring it inline with the MOS and with WP:LEAD. It was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago, but if it were back up for FA, it would fail miserably. Anyone willing to tackle the needed MOS and lead fixes?" The note went unanswered until May 15th, when the original primary contributer who put it in the current format only argued that his format was better. No substantive work was done to bring it inline, nor any discussion on other issues. As I feel more than enough time has been given to do anything at all, I'm now bringing here for formal review. I feel the article fails the following criteria:
-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Lots of early comments. Not sure what the status is now. Marskell ( talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply