This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you
Thanks, Frcm1988 ( talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: As I said a few days ago, when peer-reviewing the 1999 list, there isn't a lot to review here. Assuming that the list is accurate, you are using a format which has proved acceptable at FL, so all I will do is point out some prose quibbles in the introduction.
That's all. The peer review process relies on the willingness of editors generally to spend time reviewing other articles. It would be greatly appreciated if you would be prepared to review one or more articles, given the current level at which you are sending articles here. We need more people. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature list status. Thank you
Thanks, Frcm1988 ( talk) 07:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: As I said a few days ago, when peer-reviewing the 1999 list, there isn't a lot to review here. Assuming that the list is accurate, you are using a format which has proved acceptable at FL, so all I will do is point out some prose quibbles in the introduction.
That's all. The peer review process relies on the willingness of editors generally to spend time reviewing other articles. It would be greatly appreciated if you would be prepared to review one or more articles, given the current level at which you are sending articles here. We need more people. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)