Talk:Scientists report chemotherapy cocktail may cause adult women to grow new egg cells
Review of revision 4268150 [Not ready] edit
Revision 4268150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 4268150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
(Btw, it's now quite late where I am, so I won't be doing any more review for, at best, most of the next half day. It's not impossible another reviewer might come by sooner. --Pi zero (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
- Soooooo greenlight to work on this or wait for more? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24: Green light, absolutely; time is at a premium here, as, in stark contrast to Wikipedia, here there definitely is a deadline. The ball is in your court, to revise and resubmit for consideration of whatever reviewer chooses to take it up (probably me, tomorrow, but not necessarily). --Pi zero (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, gave it a scrub and rearrange. I like the funnel opening, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24: When you believe it's ready to be re-reviewed, submit it; there should be a button on the not-ready tag at the top of the page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, gave it a scrub and rearrange. I like the funnel opening, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24: Green light, absolutely; time is at a premium here, as, in stark contrast to Wikipedia, here there definitely is a deadline. The ball is in your court, to revise and resubmit for consideration of whatever reviewer chooses to take it up (probably me, tomorrow, but not necessarily). --Pi zero (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Review of revision 4268343 [Passed] edit
Revision 4268343 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It's been longer than I care to admit since I worked on science news, even though it's a favourite topic. Hopefully I've made no messes :P 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 4268343 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It's been longer than I care to admit since I worked on science news, even though it's a favourite topic. Hopefully I've made no messes :P 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. |
Headline spelling edit
Small typo in "scientists", @Pi zero:; I can't rename in my account. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost always undesirable to rename after publication, and a few months back we had some page-move vandalism, so now I usually fully protect moves on published articles. A typo like this is a pretty obvious exception to the rule. Fixed; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)