Talk:History of Pittsburgh/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
m (typo fixed)
imported>Howard Arvi Hughes
m (checklist)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{checklist
|                abc =  
|                abc = Pittsburgh, History to 1800
|                cat1 =  
|                cat1 = History
|                cat2 =  
|                cat2 =  
|                cat3 =  
|                cat3 =  
|          cat_check =  
|          cat_check = n
|              status =  
|              status = 1
|        underlinked =  
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup =  
|            cleanup = y
|                  by =  
|                  by = [[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 05:05, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
}}
}}
==Approval Area==
==Approval Area==

Revision as of 04:05, 25 April 2007


Article Checklist for "History of Pittsburgh/Archive 2"
Workgroup category or categories History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Versuri 05:05, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Approval Area

Toapprove.png
Richard Jensen has nominated this version of this article for approval. Other editors may also sign to support approval. The History Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on May 1, 2007.

Checklist request

Can you please use {{checklist}}, not the "experimental" template. The trouble with the latter is that it has not been rendered consistent with the former, and display problems have still not been fixed. --Larry Sanger 11:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I can, sorry about that. --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:18, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Misspelling in Quote?

Is the misspelling of extremely in the quote from Washington's journal intentional based on his original spelling, or does it need to be corrected? "which I think extreamly well situated for a Fort;" Matt Mahlmann 22:50, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

that was a typo--very good eye! Richard Jensen 23:25, 24 April 2007 (CDT)