Page history
19 October 2011
→Reviewer 2
m-4
→Reviewer 2
m-2
→Referee: 3: good enough?
+767
no edit summary
-51
→Reviewer 1: ++
+46
→Reviewer 2: Moved the 'footnote' closer to the point it is used in the text, and changed the symbol for clarity.
+497
→Comments on *this* page: done?
+325
→Reviewer 2: adding the broader discussion and replies. Saving for safety
+6,658
7 October 2011
5 October 2011
4 October 2011
3 October 2011
→Reviewer 1
-57
→Reviewer 2: Making the page easier to paste into the review system, I don't see why we shouldn't make *this* document the primary reply text (i.e. please avoid ancillary word or Google documents)
-299
→Referee: 3
+469
→Rebuttal
+10
→Reviewer 2: Please treat this as the reply text, so it's easy to paste into the review system
-53
→Reviewer 2
+501
→Reviewer 2
+92
→SUCCESS!: First pass
+1,522
→SUCCESS!
+121
→Reviewer 2
+91
→Reviewer 1
+73
→SUCCESS!
+1,080
no edit summary
+59
27 September 2011
26 September 2011
24 September 2011
→Point 4 (Our summary: The content is bad)
+148
→Point 4 (Our summary: The content is bad)
+19
→Point 4 (Our summary: The content is bad)
+689
23 September 2011
→Point 2 (Our summary: The introduction misses the point)
+241
→Point 2 (Our summary: The introduction misses the point)
+27
→Is the wiki fit for purpose in the long run?
+127
→Comments
+158
→Content is sparse: blearg... bed time for me
+794
→Content is sparse
+183
→Content is sparse: Filled in a couple of replies. I don't fee qualified to reply on the tutorials section. Just realized I need to go look at file formats, so I'm off to do that.
+690
22 September 2011
→Point 3 (Our summary: The content is bad)
-9
→Point 1 (Our summary: Browsing is bad): Should we describe these resources in the MS?
+91
→Point 3 (Our summary: The content is bad): added some stats, and removed a 'todo' ... I should go do that now...
+64
21 September 2011
→Referee: 3: standardizing formatting, some 'pointers' to add here, as I think we've covered most of these points (above).
+25
→Reviewer 1: changed formatting and written an alternative reply. Just realized, I'd rather work on the 'advanced query form' than draft a para about the article score, and Marco wants the conch..
+1,595
→Reviewer 2: changed the reply format, and addressed all the points I can. I'm still working on the MS though :( sorry marco! P.S. Lets exclude 'our summary' text from the reply!
+780
19 September 2011
17 September 2011
→The introduction misses the point: I broke my own formatting guidelines! for shame!
+2
→The introduction misses the point: Re read the intro with this comment in mind, and I can't really see the problem here.
+506
Added in the reviewers 'opening' comments, which I originally excluded because there was nothing to explicitly reply to there. However, they provide good context for the replies.
+774