Talk:Middlesbrough meteorite

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Middlesbrough meteorite is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology: Meteorites Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Middlesbrough meteorite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (assessed as Low-importance).

York Museums Trust Mid‑importance

	This article is related to the York Museums Trust and is relevant to the GLAM partnership between the trust and Wikimedia UK. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.York Museums TrustWikipedia:GLAM/YMTTemplate:WikiProject York Museums TrustYork Museums Trust-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This doesn't sound right: "nor where there were no reports of either a fireball or smoke trail."

Should this be changed to? "nor were there any reports of either a fireball or smoke trail."

Scotteemac (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! I've changed it for you. Whoever wrote it was trying to paraphrase the referenced article in New Scientist - but was obviously not up to the job :) Francis Hannaway 15:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was the person "not up to the job" responsible for that horrendous gaffe. I was rewriting the article to remove what looked like copyright problems - the text was alarmingly close to being "lifted" from the only reference provided and the text that accompanied a picture of the meteorite on Flickr here. (Compare the text in the the article as I found it here with the reference and the Flickr description and you can see why I thought there was an issue that needed a quick resolution.) Looking at the edit history, I still can't fathom how I let that grammatical slip through; I was drafting the rewrite on a text editor and I must have had a lapse in concentration. In my defence, I did add the New Scientist reference - not to mention actually finding it in the first place - and the other ten references based on seven sources. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]