Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scolopendra"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
(FAC vote:oppose) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
'''Oppose''' | '''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''' | '''Neutral''' | ||
Revision as of 07:51, 3 March 2005
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)
Scolopendra FAC Vote (2/0/0)
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. Khen 14:52, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Freod 23:37, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- 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. Rechze • (talk) 11:51, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Neutral
Comments/Questions
