This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status again. Since December 2007, when the last nomination failed, there has been significant improvement to the article. Please suggest any ways to improve this article, rather than negative comments.
Thanks, Andrewmc123 ( talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: A lot of effort has gone into this article, but it is not FA-worthy and should not be re-submitted to FAC in anything like its present state. The problem that leaps out and which must be addressed is the problem of sourcing or the lack thereof.
I hope these comments prove helpful even though they provide no easy route to success. Such a route does not exist. Finetooth ( talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status again. Since December 2007, when the last nomination failed, there has been significant improvement to the article. Please suggest any ways to improve this article, rather than negative comments.
Thanks, Andrewmc123 ( talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: A lot of effort has gone into this article, but it is not FA-worthy and should not be re-submitted to FAC in anything like its present state. The problem that leaps out and which must be addressed is the problem of sourcing or the lack thereof.
I hope these comments prove helpful even though they provide no easy route to success. Such a route does not exist. Finetooth ( talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)