Talk:Nurseries not harmful to children, says new UK study
Review of revision 1039472 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 1039472 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: A bit concerned about the last source but other wise good 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 1039472 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: A bit concerned about the last source but other wise good 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. |
Changing title?[edit]
Interesting article but the term "nurseries" implies gardening stores in the United States. Perhaps "Pre-schools not harmful to young children" might be a better title.
- Outside the United States, 'pre-schools' is meaningless. Most people would guess a pre-school to be a young kid... Which would make 'children are not harmful to children'. We need something that works universally. If I have a bright idea what, I'll be back. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Image change needed[edit]
The image of a child reading a book is to be deleted from Commons. A replacement will be required. Equivalent images can be found at [1]. Rama (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for info. The article is archived. I think we should leave the red link. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The redlink should be removed. Such would be considered a non-content edit under WN:ARCHIVE. The actual content - the image - would already be gone. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)