Awesome! You've created a pull request to the Citation Styles Language styles repository. We'll get in touch soon (usually within a day or two). In the meantime, our automated test system will go ahead and run some checks on your pull request. In a few minutes you'll be notified of the test results.

If you haven't done so yet, please make sure your style validates and follows all our other Style Requirements.

To update the current pull request, visit the "Files changed" tab above, and click on the pencil icon (see below) in the top-right corner of your style to start editing.

If you need assistance at any point, please leave a comment and we'll get back to you (feel free to write in Dutch, English, French, German, Portuguese, or Spanish).

😃 Your submission passed all our automated tests.

@rmzelle -- since this one is larger, I'm leaving it for you to merge, but gtg from my side.

😃 Your submission passed all our automated tests.

@adam3smith, I'm kicking the ball back to you. If you agree with my changes feel free to squash-merge. I added some explanation in the style's summary. I also removed the "author-date" in the title (replacing it by "retired") and removed the "generic-base" category to put as little emphasis as possible on the style.

Also, slightly off-topic, the "documentation" link for https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/master/harvard-cite-them-right.csl is a bit weird. Should we link to https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/Cite-Them-Right/?K=9781137585042 instead? I also noticed that the 10th edition was released in May 2016, while we're still on the 9th.

Looks good. Two questions & 1 update:

1. How about "deprecated" rather than "retired"? The latter sounds odd to me
2. For the style guide link: The current one won't do, obviously, since the link doesn't lead anywhere. We can link to either the book or the website for it (http://www.citethemrightonline.com/) but both are obviously not universally accessible. Alternatively, we could link to a freely available summary: https://www.canterbury.ac.uk/library/docs/harvard.pdf I'd be inclined to do the latter or both. Thoughts?
3. I'll update to the 10th edition. Fortunately, changes are minimal.

😃 Your submission passed all our automated tests.

Great, thanks. Maybe link to the "online" website and the summary, then?