Timeline for Further peer review required for edit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Aug 9, 2016 at 2:48 | comment | added | Kevin Brown-Silva | @Xalorous I think the implication was that going further would have increased the chances of having the edit accepted, not that the current form should have been rejected because it didn't go that far. | |
| Aug 8, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | Jeter-work | Your changes were good, but they didn't go far enough. Shouldn't the bar be improves the post, which is achievable, not perfects the post, which is not? | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 14:02 | comment | added | Ben N | @CodyGray Code formatting clearly sets off file paths and commands from the surrounding punctuation because it has a visual box here, unlike italics. (Notice how the original post had included extra spaces before commas and periods to set special text apart, which is not grammatically correct.) | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 12:34 | comment | added | Cody Gray | "you left code-like stuff (file paths and commands) italicized, which is less than ideal formatting." Why? File paths and commands aren't actually code; monospacing them doesn't serve any functional purpose, just a semantic one. And it has a very real cost: it decreases readability. It's up to the author whether they want to use code formatting or italics, obviously, but imposing this requirement upon an editor seems completely wrong to me. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 16:58 | comment | added | Caturday Saint | Thank you for this information. I will keep this in mind if/when I edit posts. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 16:52 | history | answered | Ben N | CC BY-SA 3.0 |