diff --git a/_posts/_posts/2024-03-18-4th-issue-newsletter.md b/_posts/_posts/2024-03-18-4th-issue-newsletter.md
index 28e7b9ef0..b9dff2359 100644
--- a/_posts/_posts/2024-03-18-4th-issue-newsletter.md
+++ b/_posts/_posts/2024-03-18-4th-issue-newsletter.md
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ An explanation of the dashboard report is available here ([link to dashboard vid
 * Addition of a new ontology status: “[unresponsive](https://obofoundry.org/docs/OntologyStatus.html)”, which signifies that the ontology project does not have a contact person who is responsive, but the ontology is still being actively maintained. 
 * New Ontology submissions no longer need to pass the criterion “resolvable version IRI” during the submission process, as this is tied to the PURL resolution system. It is, however, expected that when an ontology is officially admitted, the version IRI does resolve correctly,  
 * Updating the [SOP document](https://obofoundry.org/docs/SOP.html) to include a new subsection under "Reviewing Ontologies for OBO Membership." This subsection, titled "Rules of Communication," designates the official ontology reviewer as the authority to decide which community suggestions need to be addressed and which do not, aiming to manage situations where community input might not meet the established principles. This addition is intended to streamline the review process and clarify the role of community feedback in ontology evaluations. For more details, please visit the pull request page #[2528](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2528)
-* EWG improved the OBO Foundry ontology review process by specifying how community input should be taken into account during the review process. The Ontology reviewer has the last word, and is responsible to communicate which feedback is optional, and which mandatory to be addressed before admission (Issue #[2459](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2459)).
+* The EWG improved the OBO Foundry ontology review process by specifying how community input should be taken into account during the review process. The Ontology reviewer has the last word, and is responsible to communicate which feedback is optional, and which mandatory to be addressed before admission (Issue #[2459](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2459)).
 * The EWG created an improved FAQ about the OBO Dashboard, covering its role in the Ontology Review process and guides on how to address specific issues.  (Issue #[2263](https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2263))
 
 ---