|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
It means that it has in fact passed the review :). I was hoping to get a few more official declarations, so it's something of a default keep. However, clearly a lot of improvement had been done and its in keepish territory.
There are still a few minor things you might do (if you're in the mood for tediousness). In the citations, p. is sometimes used for page numbers, sometimes not. Retrieved is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. Try to render these and any other formatting consistent.
- Thanks for confirming! Good news indeed.
- As for the two issues you raise -- they are both to do with inconsistencies in the underlying citations templates being used; the "standard" citation template outputs "retrieved", whereas the Web and Press Release citation formats output "Retrieved". If you do a search within the code in the article you'll see that that word never appears anywhere in the work itself, so it has everything to do with how the citation templates are inconsistent with each other. I strongly suspect that the same thing applies to the "p." comment. In this case I respectfully submit that this level of standardization is outside the compass of the article itself, though I will happily wade in on trying to make things consistent across the citation template formats. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Differences in citation templates are an annoying problem as you have to chose between using only one (and thus sourcing with the wrong type in some cases) or let the inconsistencies stand. I tend to overuse Cite Web, as it can logically cover press releases and most news sources (but not academic journals). In any case, no biggie. Marskell (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)