Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boondock Saints

The Boondock Saints
This is a self nomination of the article. I've been working on the article for about two weeks. I think the article meets all the featured article criteria. It's comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and without edit wars or disputes. The lead section is concise and gives a broad summary of the entire article. I feel it is an overall interesting read, that is ready to be a featured article. K O S |  talk  17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The three images need Fair Use rationales. Wiki-newbie 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added fair use rationale for the three images in the article, sorry about that. K O S  |  talk  18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment -Footnotes come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence (at least 2 are). The footnote about the DVD should have info on the DVD, title, publisher, date, etc as this info can change over time.Rlevse 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed two of the footnotes that did not come after some form of punctuation. Please let me know if I missed any more. I also added the publishers and date into the DVD section, and the footnote text. Thanks  K O S  |  talk  19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The DVD footnote, number 13, still isn't up to snuff, nothing changed.Rlevse 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah my apologies I misunderstood your comment at first glance. Thanks for pointing that out more specifically. Done. K O S  |  talk  20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A comprehensive and interesting article, well-referenced and neutral. Now that the images have FURs, I have no hesitation in supporting (though please fix the placing of the footnotes). Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After a breeze through the article, I found a lot of run-on sentences, small typos, and other style and grammar related issues - perhaps a thorough copy edit by users who have not been involved in the article's development would be a good idea?--Dmz5 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to resolve the issues you have pointed out, I believe the issues have been resolved, though an other copy edit by users who have not had a hand in the development of the article, might be a good idea. K O S  |  talk  11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been overlooking this article for about the 2 weeks that it has been worked on. Over this time, the changes that have been made have enhanced the article in several ways.  The article captures a wide audience, and interest in the subject is not necessarily needed to make for an enjoyable read.  The article edit history does not include any edit wars, the whole article is written in a comprehensive manner, the number of sources provided is sufficient and the article is not bias in any way. In my opinion, this article should become a featured article. Support --Ali K 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I'd like to see the refs have a bit more information than a url and retrieval date, but that's my only issue. pschemp | talk 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)