Good article. -- JoãoFelipe ( Let's talk! ) 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JoãoFelipe ( Let's talk! ) 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written and cited article, definitely is FA worthy.Ganfon 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, fails criteria 1c off the bat, with only 3 or so incline citations. I would suggest peer review. - Tutmosis 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Too listy in places, lacks sufficient inline citations and there's many embedded links that need conversion. This wouldn't even make GA right now, so I echo - Tutmosis's suggestion to go to peer review. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object: the lead needs work; the "History" section is preposterously lacking in detail about the 20th century; "Government and politics" is too short; "Geography" is too listy; "Science and technology" is a stubsection; the wrapping is broken for IE in many places and then, perhaps most importantly, the refs are seriously inadequate. (not enough refs, citation needed tags and inconsistent ref style). Mikker (...) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: Only three inline citations.--HisSpaceResearch 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Not well cited and in some places listy.--Yannismarou 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Not ready for FAC, refer to peer review for more work. Sandy (Talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object There are only three citations, there are articles with 50 references that don't make the GA review. Peer review might be the way to go, or take a look at Canada, Australia and India (all FAs) to see the FA standard for country articles. Baristarim 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object The article lacks a NPOV. It cointains a lot of unreferenced claims. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
