Talk:73M-year-old fossilized fish found in Canada
 |
Revision 685090 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: When you are quoting from a Science Journal use {{Source-science}} instead of {{Source}}, as it is specifically designed for this type of thing. Gopher65talk 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 685090 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: When you are quoting from a Science Journal use {{Source-science}} instead of {{Source}}, as it is specifically designed for this type of thing. Gopher65talk 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Royal Society is not an 8 member team.[edit]
Contrary to the article, the Royal Society is not an 8 member team. It is an organization with hundreds of members.
I'm not fixing this as I would be guessing at what the sentence was supposed to mean.Wanderer57 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Done or at least I think I resovled this sentence into something that makes sense. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Category improvement[edit]
{{editprotected}}
I think "Category:Archaeology" is more appropriate than "Category:Anthropology and archaeology", as this article has nothing to do with anthropology. "Category:Archaeology" is also a subcategory of "Category:Anthropology and archaeology", thus it shouldn't be any problem. Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)