Talk:Steel industry, history: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
No edit summary
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(→‎18509: new section)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Steel industry, history
 
|                cat1 = Business
== Provenance of the article ==
|                cat2 = History
|                cat3 =  
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 4
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 11:41, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
}}
::the entire article is by CZ editor Richard Jensen; parts appeared in Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
::the entire article is by CZ editor Richard Jensen; parts appeared in Wikipedia. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
== 18509 ==
Just [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Steel_industry%2C_history&curid=100016420&diff=100724030&oldid=100704251 changed] the "year" 18509 to 1850 but I have no idea whether this is even remotely correct, and no source was given for the statement anyway. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:57, 22 October 2010

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The story of development of one of the core technologies of the Industrial Revolution. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Business and History [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Provenance of the article

the entire article is by CZ editor Richard Jensen; parts appeared in Wikipedia. Richard Jensen 13:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

18509

Just changed the "year" 18509 to 1850 but I have no idea whether this is even remotely correct, and no source was given for the statement anyway. --Daniel Mietchen 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)