I recently did a rewrite and added substantial sourcing to this article; since then, it has been named a good article, and I would like to submit it for featured status in the near future. The GA reviewer felt it was a pretty good package as it stands, and I've not really come up with any other ideas at this point. So, I would appreciate any comments that might be forthcoming about ways to improve towards the eventual goal of reaching Featured status. Are there any additions that would be beneficial? Any sections that might need improvement? Thanks in advance for any comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I commend you for your effort to rewrite the article. A couple things though:
Overall though, I'd say it definately has potential. Well done! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently did a rewrite and added substantial sourcing to this article; since then, it has been named a good article, and I would like to submit it for featured status in the near future. The GA reviewer felt it was a pretty good package as it stands, and I've not really come up with any other ideas at this point. So, I would appreciate any comments that might be forthcoming about ways to improve towards the eventual goal of reaching Featured status. Are there any additions that would be beneficial? Any sections that might need improvement? Thanks in advance for any comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I commend you for your effort to rewrite the article. A couple things though:
Overall though, I'd say it definately has potential. Well done! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)