Biology/Approval

Reserved for a log of re-approval events for Biology article and template records

See here for help.

Version 1.1 approval

(Earlier details of V 1.1 commented out for clarity)

Version 1.2 approval

Updated termplate url pointer reflecting Chris Day's/ D Tribe's minor edits David Tribe 01:08, 26 January 2007 (CST) Further updated approval url pointer David Tribe 00:53, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Biology version 1.2 created here in Biology log. David Tribe 01:05, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Version 1.2.1 approval

Approval of Version 1.2.1.--Ruth Ifcher 00:53, 4 February 2007 (CST) Further updated url pointer and reinstated "To approve" template to incorporate two minor edits (full stops and blank spaces plus emergency changes to several figures caused by changes in primary file sizes of figures that lack thumbnails).

This update involves no change to the substance of approved version 1.2 and is occurring to ensure a due process is followed for article re-approval. It is noted that person with sysop permissions other than User David Tribe will need to action this revision after the specified deadline has elapsed. David Tribe 14:31, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Version 1.3

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Biology/Draft&oldid=100033561 Issues being raised and assumed to be resolved But have your say

• The Zebra finch.
• The Einstein comment.
• The Montage (a no brainer)
• Minor links and amendments made already by David Tribe 20:26, 11 February 2007 (CST) (and otherS) after Ifcher action
• Wot else?

FURTHER RESPONSES HERE:

As one editor only, I have thought carefully for a day or so, and consulted The Shorter Oxford Dictionary about the recent finely-balanced suggestion of changing 'Anatomy' to 'Morphology and see the argument for the change. I also realise there is a counter argument (Anatomy has its argument too, including being common usage.) I also am very pleased that (David Hume) is contributing vigorously to other articles connecting with this, and recognise the need to link to them. Thus I propose to accept this change after a wait of at least 24 hours from this time to allow counter opinion to be expression, if any . I personally feel there is no large harm either way, but its collegial to work contructively with give and take in tricky decisions. I may be off-line for 72 hours so another editor is welcome to do the honours David Tribe 15:46, 20 February 2007 (CST)

I'd say this debate has only just begun (see Talk:Biology). There appear to be three opinions with respect to the usage of morphology and anatomy; the relationship of the terms could be considered hierarchial, synonomous or distinct. Chris Day (Talk) 15:51, 20 February 2007 (CST)

interrupted mid-edit after reading other comments on Biology Talk. The Oxford dictionary defines morphology in terms of form or outward appearance, anatomy in terms of deeper dissect able structure. I'm now making a decision to action the changes prior to the morphology proposal, and its possible incorporation can wait (as previously did a significant number of substantial changes in version 1.3.)David Tribe 16:01, 20 February 2007 (CST)

David Tribe 20:26, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Version 1.4 approval

Anatomy/morphology still ongoing. Chris Day (Talk) 12:44, 5 March 2007 (CST)

I just made an editorial decision to equate structure with anatomy AND morphology. I have now requested that this article be reapproved to incorporate the new subpages structure. Other differences include decreasing the emphasis on Einstein and various copy edits. Differences between the version i am recommending and the current article can be seen here. Chris Day (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Chris Day nominated the whole Biology Cluster for approval including the version dated 17:02, 6 September 2007 (CDT) of the article as well as all the subpages. The Biology Workgroup oversaw this approval and the cluster was approved on, or around, 20070910.

Approved September 10, 2007 using the individual editor method as the edits in question were not content related edits made by the nominating editor, Chris Day. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:42, 10 September 2007 (CDT)