Added fair use rationale, and one screenshot. Looks like I can't add another one under the fair use licences. Anything else?
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, right, OK. I've added fair use rationales to the actual images now. Is this OK? Do you have any other comments for how to improve the article for FA?
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I just did a big copyedit of that page and renamed/moved some sectoins. You might want to check it for more/evaluate my changes, I'll come back with more suggestions in a minute.
Cbrown102315:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
They seem fine, under a cursory look. Thanks for that, and everything else you've suggested. I think once you're finished I will nominate for FA. :)
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was concerned about that when I was first told to create a section, but I think it's cited OK now, and the one sentence that isn't is blatantly obvious and so doesn't need citation.
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Everything else seems good, I'm pretty sure that you can nominate for FA. After all, a
featured article nomination is as much a peer review, as a candidacy. If you don't succeed, they will give you ways on how to improve and you can just renominate it after you do that.
Cbrown102319:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Ok, I'll nominate now then. Thanks for your help man - I've learnt new stuff from this peer review (like fair use rationales...).
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Added fair use rationale, and one screenshot. Looks like I can't add another one under the fair use licences. Anything else?
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, right, OK. I've added fair use rationales to the actual images now. Is this OK? Do you have any other comments for how to improve the article for FA?
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I just did a big copyedit of that page and renamed/moved some sectoins. You might want to check it for more/evaluate my changes, I'll come back with more suggestions in a minute.
Cbrown102315:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
They seem fine, under a cursory look. Thanks for that, and everything else you've suggested. I think once you're finished I will nominate for FA. :)
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was concerned about that when I was first told to create a section, but I think it's cited OK now, and the one sentence that isn't is blatantly obvious and so doesn't need citation.
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Everything else seems good, I'm pretty sure that you can nominate for FA. After all, a
featured article nomination is as much a peer review, as a candidacy. If you don't succeed, they will give you ways on how to improve and you can just renominate it after you do that.
Cbrown102319:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Ok, I'll nominate now then. Thanks for your help man - I've learnt new stuff from this peer review (like fair use rationales...).
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply