Talk:First successful womb transplant recipient passes six-week pregnancy mark

Review of revision 1889755 [Not ready]
What do you think LauraHale? Closer to getting published? Keen to hear your thoughts. Thanks. MountaineerUOW (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1890037 [Not ready]
Hm. I can't count, I see &mdash; it's now the second day and about to be the third. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pi Zero - You had me confused for a second too, so I'm glad of the extra time to see this article through. I've tried some re-working of the text...what do you think? I look forward to hearing your feedback and making the appropriate changes to see this published. THank you. MountaineerUOW (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What I can immediately see is that you've done a bunch of the right sorts of things one would do to address the kind of distance-from-source problem I observed. My guess is, there will be some bits that'll need adjustment for verification, now; I'm hoping it'll be within what a reviewer can repair without disqualifying themself (generally, changes that involve trimming stuff are relatively safe, while changes that involve adding anything would have to be much more limited).


 * The time difference between there and here is vicious &mdash; LauraHale is in Australia atm, but I'm pretty close to the opposite side of the globe. I'm going to need a night's sleep before I can do another full review, which probably means the earliest I could do another review on this would be sometime in the evening there... if I'm not prevented by stuff irl.  We'll see how things work out.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1890936 [Passed]
Thank you Pi zero, I appreciate the effort. I understand the style you're going for a bit better now. Can I ask what you mean by 'distance from source' problems you mentioned I had? Just so I know for next time. Thanks. MountaineerUOW (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We use the phrase "distance from source" to mean that something had too closely resembled a source and was made more distant from the source. Technically, of the five review criteria it goes under "copyright", which really encompasses both copyright proper and also plagiarism (but I tend not to be heavy-handed with the use of the term plagiarism, which is apt to provoke a pretty strong response from people &mdash; granting that occasionally its shock value can be useful for getting someone's attention :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment
doctors fertilised one of these eggs... So one of them is the baby's father? --Elitre (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it's understood that the the doctors fertilized the egg in vitro and not through the normal means, though feel free to edit the article yourself to clarify the point if you feel it necessary. — Mike moral  ♪♫  20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)