I really hesitated over the fact this article does not mention controversy over the membership of the commission. It would be a stronger article if it did so (if it did it well); the question was whether it is a neutral article given that it doesn't. I've finally concluded that since the article chooses not to go into issues about bias or non-bias of the commission, it's tolerable that it doesn't mention that controversy. To mention the controversy well would entail an escalation of the article that isn't obviously requisite.
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.
I really hesitated over the fact this article does not mention controversy over the membership of the commission. It would be a stronger article if it did so (if it did it well); the question was whether it is a neutral article given that it doesn't. I've finally concluded that since the article chooses not to go into issues about bias or non-bias of the commission, it's tolerable that it doesn't mention that controversy. To mention the controversy well would entail an escalation of the article that isn't obviously requisite.
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.
