A lot of sourcing issues. Too many to list. Several are missing accessdates and publishers, while others need linking and proper formatting. Please go through all of them.
Overall I think the article is good, with the exception of the references which need a lot of work. Try and write a bit more for each section so it reads flowingly and not so repetitive and stop and go. Good luck!
Thanks, it took me lot of work to better it up to nominate it as a GA... I'll try my best to improve it further! - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Nearly there. The refs look much better, however there are some errors and inconsistencies. SOme of the works that are printed sources are not in italics. Plus, for the charting sources, I would prefer you use official archive. Lastly, you have & Hun Medien on some and . Hung Medien and other inconsistencies. Fix these nitpicks up and we can pass it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, about that... The charts references are generated automatically by Wikipedia, so I can't correct them... And some of it show & Hung Medien, while others show . Hung Medien. I fixed up what it was allowed. And I've already italiziced the printed sources... - Sauloviegas (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. You know, for the future you can just format the table and references yourself instead of following the automatic menu. Anyways, I'm passing it. Review closed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)