User talk:David Finn: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Finn (→Physical activity: cheers) |
imported>D. Matt Innis m (Protected "User talk:David Finn" ([move=sysop] (indefinite))) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== | == Re re-approval of [[Boiling point/Draft]] == | ||
:I | David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding [[Boiling point/Draft]], and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not. | ||
Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval. | |||
Thank you. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager. | |||
:I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:45, 15 April 2012
Re re-approval of Boiling point/Draft
David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding Boiling point/Draft, and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not.
Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval.
Thank you. —Anthony.Sebastian 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.
- I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! David Finn 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)