Talk:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Access2Research/2

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)
  • The image is CC-BY like the video. Thanks for your feedback and help! --DarTar (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)