The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:34, 18 July 2008 [1].
Have notified User:Lord Emsworth the main editor and nominator and wp:Version 0.5. Notifications completed.
9 references total in a 47 kb article. Definitely doesn't fill the criteria. Noble Story ( talk • contributions) 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I would lose that graph in the middle of the article. Buc ( talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - Terrible article. Only 10 refs, poor prose, poor layout and a short lead (see WP:LEAD). The graph in the middle is cramped and difficult to read. A large amount of work is required to bring this up to 2008 FA standards. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - The article fails WP:FACR:
This article needs a lot of work on both language and verifiable content. Lwnf360 ( talk) 10:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:34, 18 July 2008 [1].
Have notified User:Lord Emsworth the main editor and nominator and wp:Version 0.5. Notifications completed.
9 references total in a 47 kb article. Definitely doesn't fill the criteria. Noble Story ( talk • contributions) 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I would lose that graph in the middle of the article. Buc ( talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - Terrible article. Only 10 refs, poor prose, poor layout and a short lead (see WP:LEAD). The graph in the middle is cramped and difficult to read. A large amount of work is required to bring this up to 2008 FA standards. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - The article fails WP:FACR:
This article needs a lot of work on both language and verifiable content. Lwnf360 ( talk) 10:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply