Randomized controlled trial/Approval
| Robert Badgett nominated the version dated 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) of this article for approval. Two other editors supported the approval (Gareth Leng and Supten Sarbadhikari). The Health Sciences Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, May 12, 2009. |
| Robert Badgett 14:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) nominated the version dated 1 June 2009 of this article for approval. Two other editors supported the approval (Supten Sarbadhikari and Gareth Leng 12:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)). The Health Sciences Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, 1 July 2009 - This is Version 1.1. |
The pointer on this ToApprove template points to the current Approved version of the article (May 12, 2009) and I assumed that it is meant for the latest version of the Draft which made it's last edits on June 18, 2009 by Robert. I also see that Gareth and Supten added their endorsement on June 19th and 20th which I also assume means that they saw the last two edits that were made after June 1, 2009 which is the date on the template. Considering that Robert made the edits, it looks like we have three editors that endorse the June 18, 2009 version, there were no objections so the June 18th version was used as the re-approval version. D. Matt Innis 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
| Robert Badgett 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) nominated the version dated 30 Sept 2009 of this article for approval. Two other editors supported the approval (Gareth Leng 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) and Supten Sarbadhikari 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)). The Health Sciences Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, 1 Nov 2009 - This is Version 1.2. |
| Robert Badgett 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) nominated the version dated Revision as of 04:39, 26 January 2012 of this article for approval. Two other editors supported the approval (Anthony.Sebastian 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) and Gareth Leng 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)). The Health Sciences Workgroup oversaw this approval and the article was approved on, or around, February 20, 2012. |
Reapproval 2011
Author: Robert Badgett
Can we approve the many changes? - Robert Badgett 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Sebastian
This information-rich, well attributed, narratively coherent article merits reapproval, in my judgment.
Because it presents as a technical article, a 'student level' subpage might be considered in future development, but I recommend reapproval of this version now.
—Anthony.Sebastian 20:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Gareth Leng
This is an authoritative article that provides a very closely referenced but textually compact summary of the topic. It is not for lay reading, but as an introduction to the interested scholar it is an excellent starting point.
Peter Schmitt
- This revision was almost exclusively prepared by Robert Badgett (Editor for this field).
- It has been reviewed positively by Gareth Leng (Editor for this field).
- Anthony Sebastian (Editor for this field) has only added a quote (that coulc be left out, as well).
Therefore, Anthony's involvement with this article does not disqualify him as certifying Approval Manager.
--Peter Schmitt 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Secretary of the EC, by EC:R-2011-027 (C.1)).
Comment by Approval Manager Anthony.Sebastian
I am satisfied this revision is certifiable at this point in time. Inasmuch as I am one of the experts who reviewed and supported it, I am disallowed from Granting Certification of Approval. To expedite the process, I will ask the Editorial Council to consider certification. Anthony.Sebastian 13:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- See EC Secretary's comment, previous section. I will take responsibility for certifying approval. Anthony.Sebastian 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Certifying approval
No edits have been made on the version indicated on the ToApprove banner, and no actionable comments have been made on the Talk page. Therefore I certify approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. Anthony.Sebastian 12:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)