Talk:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Access2Research/2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Like draft 1, this is professionally framed and beautifully written. A few points:

  • "Though such costs have become commonplace, are they justifiable when the underlying research is publicly funded?" In this third sentence, I think "taxpayer-funded" rather than "publicly funded" might be nice: framing the people who fork out the money, rather than an amorphous, arm's-length entity such as the public, may have a little more impact. It's repeated in the quote, but then "publicly funded" comes again immediately after it, so there'll be rep either way. Unsure.
    • Good point, added taxpayer (and framed it to the US) in the following sentence.
  • I like the comma after "Today", which is absent from draft 1.
    • Agreed
  • Consider placing "We hope you will join us" on a separate line.
    • There are two bolded links to the petition, IMO that's sufficiently prominent
  • I've never been a fan of those ugly external-link symbols in the middle of running prose, which I think were originally intended for lists at the bottom of articles. The Signpost syntaxes them out. This will be going to non-Wikimedians too, I guess.
    • This is going to be posted to the WMF blog where the external symbols will disappear
  • Query whether a citation is needed for the "spirit of scientific publishing" statement.
    • I might be wrong but think Matthew's intention was to add the template verbatim as a clin d'oeil
  • Consider removing "we believe", which is grammatically a slight bump ("we believe a model"); the statement is stronger without. There's also a rep in the subsequent clause.
    • done
  • Pity the image at the bottom isn't CC-BY-SA licenced! Tony (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts/Access2Research/2&oldid=3783746"