Hello, and thank you for nominating this as a good article! I will be assessing your article within the next 7 days, and hope to communicate with you than! CookieMonster755(talk) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CB2288 Hello! I am happy to review your article. However, this article may fail the GA criteria. According to the criteria Section 1.3, it says an article will immediately fail GA status if It contains copyright infringements. The reason why the article may contain copyright infringements is because the photograph in the infobox claims it is used under CC by 2.0, and was verified by MGA73 on November 1, 2009. However, I checked the image on the original source, and it claims it's copyrighted. This could be a copyright infringement, but I did not want to close this as "failed" because I would like your comments, and to see if this is a copyright infringement or not. Was this licensed under CC by 2.0 when this was uploaded, and the author later changed the licences later on? I look forward to collaborating with you on this matter. Cheers. CookieMonster755(talk) 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MGA73 & CB2288 — I checked with Wikimedia Commons guidelines, and your right. At the time of the upload to Wikimedia, the licencor made it available under CC by 2.0. However, after it was uploaded, the licencor changed the status to copyrighted it. However, having it on Commons is not a copyright infringement. According to these guidelines, CC licenses are not revocable. This article still qualifies as GA. I will continue to review the article, to see if it passes GA. Glad we got that qualified. Cheers! CookieMonster755(talk) 03:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
