The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak oppose. This article has the making of a FA bit for the moment I can not support it. Some secions do not have citations which I think is a must for passing the article. I am a little concerned about the lack of a lead but I think the overview section makes up for it. Kyriakos09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kinda agree, the overview needs refrences... Well, they are had, but they need to be footnoted and linked, It is there but not shown. If I knew how to footnote, I would do it my self. --Pupster2112:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good article overall, but there are entire sections without any citations at all. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, either. Carom19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
