I'm putting this review on hold for seven days to allow a fair-use rationale to be added. Also, at least one external link in the article deadlinks and should be fixed (see ). I'll be watching this page, so when you're done with those you can either leave me a note here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. Otherwise, everything looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I have updated the image to how it is today, and added a fair use rationale. As for the deadlink, the deadlink checker says that  is dead, but when I click on it I have no problem seeing it. Before I take this to WP:FAC, do you have any other suggestions for the page? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I wouldn't worry about the link then. Anyway, thanks for updating the image rationale; I'll be passing this.
As to an FAC, I would highly recommend one; I was really impressed by the article, and would support it in an FAR. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)