Talk:Prospective Nobel Prize for Higgs boson work disputed

Review of revision 1076115 [Failed]

Revision 1076115 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Higgs boson or Higgs Boson? Comments by reviewer: Both Higgs boson and Higgs Boson have been used in the article. Please use consistency with capitalisation. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1076115 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Higgs boson or Higgs Boson? Comments by reviewer: Both Higgs boson and Higgs Boson have been used in the article. Please use consistency with capitalisation. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

This style point has been fixed. Would be great if this could be reviewed and published that would be apprciated.LHC Tommy (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1077246 [Passed]

Revision 1077246 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Few comments. First, this is borderline stale, as we call it at around 2-3 days. Since we've had a few issues with timely reviews, I'm making the call in favour of 'not stale'. Second, if there's a factual error or copyright problem, please yell at the last reviewer. I've carried their 'pass' ratings over to this review, so I only reviewed Style and NPOV (NPOV because you automaically look for it anyway when reading for style) in addition to that call on staleness. 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 1077246 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Few comments. First, this is borderline stale, as we call it at around 2-3 days. Since we've had a few issues with timely reviews, I'm making the call in favour of 'not stale'. Second, if there's a factual error or copyright problem, please yell at the last reviewer. I've carried their 'pass' ratings over to this review, so I only reviewed Style and NPOV (NPOV because you automaically look for it anyway when reading for style) in addition to that call on staleness. 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.