Comment: Wow, you referenced like every single one. Was that necessary? Maybe, I guess, I'm not one to judge on that. Doesn't look too bad, I'm leaning towards support but I'd like the lead to explain a little bit more about the list (such as which one was the first to win gold, the one with the most medals, etc.) --Wizardman02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - photos have been added, and more information has been provided about the first gold medal winners, first female competitors, the events in which Australia are strong, who has won the most medals, most golds, most at one Olympics etc. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Top job Blnguyen. Many hours have gone into that I bet. And what also amazes me is that the vast majority of those articles are substantial - there's no substubs that I could see and most are well beyond stub-dom. The list is referenced, well laid out and most importantly, useful. — Moondyne01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I made the references section go into two columns so it looks a little better. There are a lot, but you well-researched and that's all that counts. Also, like above, a See also'd be nice. →JARED(t)00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references needlessly gives the full citation for "Australia at the Olympics" for every single usage. Some other lists/articles separate the Notes (brief author(year):page) from the frequently consulted References (full citation) to avoid this. Colin°Talk23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
