Talk:Assange seeks asylum in Ecuadorian embassy

Review of revision 1536253 [Passed]

Revision 1536253 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1536253 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Slightly lax

A few items needed fixed in this, and should've been obvious pre-publication.

• Ecuadorian looks, well, not good.
• Date formats are monthname daynumber, year, but relative references should be used where appropriate.
• There is no need to put a date category on an article; in fact, that's a bad idea. The review gadget will complete the {{date}} template with date of publication. Adding a date category manually could land an article in two dates - very wrong.

As I say, just relatively minor points overlooked in reviewing. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought I saw you adding the date category in the Breivik article; my mistake. Noted about the adopted date format here - we're allowed to pick whichever format we like over at Wikipedia :) How far back can an "thing" happen for the reference to switch from relative to specific - e.g. "last Tuesday" vs. June 12 or "2 weeks ago on Tuesday" vs. June 5. --Errant (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That'd be WN:SG#Days, WN:SG#Dates. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with 'pick your own date format' is: if someone puts 01/02/03 - is it 1st January, or 2nd February? Fully-qualified 'formal' formats (YYYY-MM-DD) do not lend themselves to reading, whereas something like "June 22" does - and we avoid the war with USians on M/D/Y format vs D/M/Y. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)