Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtuti Militari/archive1

Virtuti Militari
Partial self-nom. Poland's highest military decoration for valor in the face of the enemy, estabilished in 1792. See Featured_articles for similar, already FA articles on the same subject for comparison. I think VM article looks quite good. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 9 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)


 * Support. Congratulations to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus for another excellent article. Balcer 9 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but as I wrote this is a partial self-nom - I deserve less then half the credit for this. Much work was done by User:Halibutt, User:Zscout370 and User:Logologist, to name the other major contributors, whom I'd like to thank for helping to push this article so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 9 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I also support the article, since a lot of work was put into it since the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work. It could use some copyediting, but nothing major. Two minor points though, I don't understand why in some cases, the reason for attribution of the medal is italicized, and sometimes it isn't. Also, the last pair of tables are not layed out correctly on my browser; the second one is partly on the left of the first one, instead of appearing under it. Phil s 9 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
 * Support--Witkacy 21:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Image Image:Sikorski Zumbach.jpg is claimed under fair use.  Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. --Carnildo 03:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Provided a source for the image, added to the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good.  One question: in the list of medals awarded 1920-1939, there are some suspiciously round numbers.  Are these numbers correct, and if so, is there a reason for the exact multiples of 100? --Carnildo 05:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think with lacking many sources online, the number could be an estimate (which, IMHO, should be noted). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, though I'm not sure if being one of the authors is not in conflict with me casting my vote here. If someone thinks so, then please disregard my vote. Halibutt 23:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not cancel your vote, but people will know on what leanings/motives you have. At least this was mentioned upfront. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Azalero 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)