Talk:Hot chocolate/GA2

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hot chocolate/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that repeated footnotes are not used properly. The first footnotes that are to be repeated are correctly formatted, such as:
 * The rest should then be formatted thusly:
 * However, all repetitions of a footnotes are formatted as though they were full footnotes. This might not make it harder on readers, but it makes it a lot harder on the random editor, and with absolutely no benefits. Could the main author please switch to the less code-heavy method?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, all repetitions of a footnotes are formatted as though they were full footnotes. This might not make it harder on readers, but it makes it a lot harder on the random editor, and with absolutely no benefits. Could the main author please switch to the less code-heavy method?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. I'll get to work on these and get back to you soon. Malinaccier (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've made all of the suggested changes (though I give Peter Isotalo credit and my thanks for fixing the references while I was on vacation). Could you please review my efforts? Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Peter Isotalo and Malinaccier who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)