||I enjoyed it. Not enough fact to be a real article, not enough fiction to be stupid. I think you could exaggerate certain aspects more, though, make them more like the "legend" section which I liked the best. Otherwise, it's a bit dry.
||Solid topic, but nothing new or revolutionary.
|Prose and formatting:
||The writing seemed a bit erratic to me. It opens up like an (intentionally) bad encyclopedia article, but then goes into a "silly" vibe in the history section and then a narrative in the "legend" section. I think it would be better if it were written in a more consistent (yet still silly) style.
||Yup, those sure are images. The "photograph" of the sky was the best, and the others fit well with the article.
||Ecletic, but solid, article. Not bad.
||--Mejwell 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)