Support. In the past six months this article has been greatly expanded. All the information in it has been acquired via official police investigation reports. It does suffer from routine vandalism, but those who moderate it are quick to act upon this. The article is consistant, accurate, well-written, and comprehensive. Also, the topic is popular and significant. -PRueda29 02:12 (UTC) August 13, 2005.
I have added the refferences, they were hidden within the "external links" section. - PRueda29 02:28, 13 August 2005, (UTC)
While I do agree with the copyright status of the pictures, I don't believe the article needs footnote refferences to be considered a featured article. The current featured article for August 13 - "Helen Gandy", has no in-line refferences and still made featured article status. Please consider this. - PRueda29 - 21:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Object. While the article is well written and seems factual, there are no references at all. Considering how much coverage this has received, until it is completely referenced I can't support it.--Alabamaboy 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While that helps, I'd still like to see some in-line references (see Wikipedia:Footnote3), especially in the sections such as Long-term impact and Aftershock and the search for reason. --Alabamaboy 02:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object.
The copyright status of Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg needs to be determined. This is a tricky one: any product of creative effort is automatically copyrighted, but is installing a security camera a creative act? I think the image is in the public domain, but I am not a copyright lawyer.
Refer to Peer Review. The description of the massacre is long-winded, and there are many formatting and wording problems throughout the article (e.g. some time stamps had AM or PM, while others did not). Also, since the event continues to provoke strong emotions, it is best that the article be looked at more thoroughly. Pentawing 22:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
