For A very well written page, and since I just used a photo from it in my UnNews article about Brett Favre, the least I can do. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Aleister in Chains 25 Jan. MMX
Yeah - Could do with a bit extra polish and more Wikipedia style formatting though.--Sycamore(Talk) 09:19, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
For.. Per my Pee Review. Also I got a clean U/A, so they kicked me out of the army. Damn tests. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 23:14, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
For. per the added closing. The formatting still looks off to me, but I can't put my finger on why so I can't very well hold that against Sog. -OptyCSucks! CUN17:39, 28 Jan
For. Excellent! Wow!! Funnybony 16:43, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Against. I rarely go against Sog but I think it is incomplete and perhaps a bit too broad as well. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
Against. If this was written by most anybody else, I'd give it a for. But this is Sog we're talking about here. I'd rather he took a bit more time polishing this up and then brought it back when it was more the quality I've come to expect from him. -OptyCSucks! CUN00:21, 27 Jan
Comments
Why's pee - always good value. --Sog1970 21:30, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
Featured. ~ 16:53, February 15, 2010 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 16 February 2010. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.