The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Another Royal Society related FLC, seems FLable. I checked with the Royal Society about the years with no rationale, they told me that it is indeed correct that some have no rationales (the sources agree, but I just wanted to be sure). To present a conflict of interest where none exists, I am required at this point to say that I am a participant in this year's WikiCup. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
publisher=
to work=
in the citation templates.Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
Support, even with new FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment date and accessdates in the references should be in the same date format throughout. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]