Talk:Scientists: Snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro to melt in twenty years
Review of revision 907043 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 907043 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good. A bit on the short side, but enough to avoid {{minimal}}. -Tempodivalse [talk] 18:59, 3 November 2009 (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 907043 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good. A bit on the short side, but enough to avoid {{minimal}}. -Tempodivalse [talk] 18:59, 3 November 2009 (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. |
Confusing wording[edit]
"The ice that was present in 1912 gradually decreased by 85% by 2000, and another 26% by 2007." Does this mean that 26% of the ice that was present in 2000 was gone by 2007? The wording is unclear. It sounds like a total decrease of 111%, but obviously that is impossible. 131.216.100.12 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, i think that's what it means - although you're right, the current wording is confusing. I'll see if I can come up with a clearer phrasing. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is this any better? Tempodivalse [talk] 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)