| Revision as of 01:26, 4 June 2006 editTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,250 edits →[]: Personal debate moved to talk page.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:28, 4 June 2006 edit undoMalber (talk | contribs)6,520 edits restored and refactored support vote lost in previous editNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| The last ] had failed (documented in the same project page). It has been one and a half month since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Misplaced Pages project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. —] | ] 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | The last ] had failed (documented in the same project page). It has been one and a half month since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Misplaced Pages project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. —] | ] 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| '''Support''' My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:28, 4 June 2006
We Belong Together
The last nominations had failed (documented in the same project page). It has been one and a half month since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Misplaced Pages project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Support My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. -M 
00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)