Review Proposed Changes
| Profile: | Cabomba | ||
| Field: | |||
| Status: | Approved | ||
| Votes: | 11 | ||
| Submitter: | GobyFan2007 | ||
| Reason: | Created new profile for review | ||
| Old Text: | New Text: | ||
| Votes | ||
| Member | Vote | Weight |
| Lindy | Approve | 4 |
| Natalie | Approve | 2 |
| Doedogg | Approve | 2 |
| LITTLE_FISH | Approve | 2 |
| longhairedgit | Approve | 1 |
| GobyFan2007 | Neutral | 0 |
| Total: 11 | ||
| Comments | |
| GobyFan2007 | Created new profile for review |
 Posted 14-Mar-2007 01:26 |       |
| longhairedgit | Approve Pretty good.We'll go for that. Well done. Looks like the ph entry got screwed up again though, you might need to edit it after it gets passed |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 01:57 |  |
| GobyFan2007 | EEK! WHAT HAPPENED! Seriously, what happened? The ph is..........long! I hope that Nobody would reject it just for that  |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 02:52 | |
| Natalie | Approve |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 04:37 | |
| Doedogg | Approve |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 13:20 | |
| LITTLE_FISH |  Edited by LITTLE_FISHNope - I am not rejecting it for that ph display, I am sure you will correct it once this approval is done  I actually doubt that Cabomba is only good for a ph range from 6.4 to 7.4. I am most certain that it will do well at a ph level well below 6.4. What is your source? EDIT: come to think of it, if you should update this profile then you may want to emphasize the weed nature of cabomba a little more than you did already. Up here in the North East it is taking over entire lakes and streams. |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 13:39 | |
| GobyFan2007 | Ok Littlefish, I will, but most of my sources(the ones that had ph)said that cabomba will suffer in more acidic conditions. That being said, i think it does need to be a little emphasised on the weed problem. The really helpful sources were about how it is a huge weed problem. Ill fix these things and add a little more when this is done!  thanks |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 14:11 | |
| Lindy | Approve |
| Posted 14-Mar-2007 23:02 | |