Talk:Report says disappearing life threatens biodiversity

This looks done, please set it to review so I can review it. :) --Poisonous (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do, as suggested.-- Tharikrish^Talk 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

How does "disappearing life" threaten biodiversity? Is it going to take us all down with it.

Once you get over the sarcasm in the above, please come up with a more accurate title. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reaction. I was waiting for the review, as suggested above. I requested the same here - talk. No sarcasm was indented. Sorry if you or Poisonous felt offended. Now, regarding the title. Disappearing life "reduces" biodiversity. Scientists say reduced biodiversity is a "... silent epidemic that could wreck our planet's ability to heal itself." They find "...these extinctions particularly worrisome because a diversity of species helps stabilize the planet. Each extinction can disrupt this balance and ripple through the food chain, making it more difficult for other species, including humans, to survive." Factors that threaten biodiversity are "...habitat destruction, overkill, introduced species and secondary extensions [?]". Extinction of a large number of species - mass extinction - threaten biodiversity. Since inaccuracy is pointed out, let me suggest a new title - "A large number of species on the verge of extinction, says study". Please comment.-- Tharikrish^Talk 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right to me...reviewing --Poisonous (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Since you aren't in irc this is more difficult, can someone see if there are differing opinions of the report? Maybe someone who doesn't agree with it? To make it more neutral? --Poisonous (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am, now.-- Tharikrish^Talk 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But I can't locate you there (irc).-- Tharikrish^Talk 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision [1] of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Can't find source for "Our results paint ... in two is declining." (Float quote). NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 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 [2] of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Can't find source for "Our results paint ... in two is declining." (Float quote). NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 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.

It is here. Source #3. Second review requested.-- Tharikrish^Talk 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 705963 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:02, 7 October 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 705963 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:02, 7 October 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.