From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | Done. --[[User:Scolopendra|Scolopendra]] 23:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) | | Done. --[[User:Scolopendra|Scolopendra]] 23:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) |
| | | | |
| − | <h3 > {{PAGENAME}} FAC Vote (3/1/0) </h3 >
| + | ''The FAC discussion on this article was moved to [[/Archive]] by (( [[User:Pacitalia|<font color="navy">Paci</font>]][[User_talk:Pacitalia|<font color="green">'''talk'''</font>]][[User:Pacitalia|<font color="red">ia</font>]] )) <small>Time sent:</small> 05:19, 13 October 2006 (GMT).'' |
| − | ''Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.'' | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Support'''
| + | |
| − | # Very informative, extremely well written and organized. A clear example of some of NSWiki's best work. [[User:Khenala|Khen]] 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
| − | # [[User:Freod|Freod]] 23:37, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
| − | # [[User:Mikhail|Mikhail]] 20:55, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Oppose''' | + | |
| − | # '''Object'''. I would have to disagree with Khen, it could use some small revision and reformatting. At times it is not most logically ordered. (eg: position of lists; should probably be as an annex would), and the prose is evidently in need of work. Although this is nothing large, I would resent its being promoted to featured article status in its current state. Apart from these objections, it is fairly good. [[User:Rechze|Rechze]] • [[User talk:Rechze|(talk)]] 11:51, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Neutral'''
| + | |
| − | #
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Comments/Questions'''
| + | |
| − | # Rechze, could you perhaps specify which sections you believe are in need of work or should be reordered, so that Scolo can take your suggestions under advisement? [[User:69.225.31.50|69.225.31.50]] 11:53, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
| − | # For record, 69.225.31.50 is me. Wasn't logged in. [[User:Khenala|Khen]] 11:56, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
| + | |
Latest revision as of 01:19, 13 October 2006
Just an idea, but maybe the whole Scolopendra history could get its own entry. That way the article is less long and the 'basic' information gets more space. You should still refer to it of course :) Knoot 21:33, 3 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Done. --Scolopendra 23:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
The FAC discussion on this article was moved to /Archive by (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 05:19, 13 October 2006 (GMT).
