Revision as of 07:25, 31 March 2012 edit Chiswick Chap (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 310,706 edits →Discussion: Contents vs Examples ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:48, 31 March 2012 edit undo Petter Bøckman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,728 edits →Discussion Next edit →
Line 128: :: Petter's feeling on the undesirability of 2 sections on Archaeopteryx is noted, but perhaps the use of a historic reconstruction (as per the GA Review notes above) solves the problem - the article rightly looks at the fossil both with modern eyes and for its historic and popular impact. :: Are people happy with that? [[User:Chiswick Chap\|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap\|talk]]) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC) :::The main action (with a bit of temperature to it) seems to be happening here: [[Talk:Transitional_fossil#Major_alterations_during_GA_review]]. Your input would be very welcome. [[User:Petter Bøckman\|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman\|talk]]) 08:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) ===Additional Notes===

Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1: Difference between revisions