Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Stanley Weir/archive1
I created this article about the lyricist for O Canada. It compiles research from several sources and, if I may be immodest, is the most complete biography I have found on the man. It also corrects a common error perpetuated by and often copied from the Government of Canada's biography that he was an MLA for Quebec, which was actually his brother, William Alexander Weir. This article has already been peer reviewed but I welcome any further criticism or contributions to the article. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mild object Change the dating format; we're not using that ISO whatever international format in main article texts yet. Daniel Case 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's your settings, dude. You can change how you see the dates on your end. They show up as "January 1, 2001" to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Not everyone who reads Wikipedia has an account with settings that can be changed. That format can be used, of course, but I've noticed, when just reading, that most articles follow the (month , year) form or the (day month, year) form, not YEAR-MO-DAY. I just think it makes it easier on visitors even if it is in the manual of style.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Of course that would be an simple change to make but I don't understand the objection. The format is approved in Manual of Style and I like the fact that it follows international standards better and is easily formatted to user preferences by MediaWiki software. If you could be more precise about what you mean by we're not using that ISO yet, I would appreciate it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- There's an ISO standard that gives that format. I can't remember what number it is. As for other comments, see above response.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Update: Date format changed by User:Dbiv. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's your settings, dude. You can change how you see the dates on your end. They show up as "January 1, 2001" to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Minor object, the content is fine, but the sectioning is really distracting for such a short article. Tweak the format and it'll be fine.--nixie 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was indeed having some trouble formulating a more reasonable sectioning format as was noted in the peer review. I strongly prefer the section formatting changes that User:Harro5 has now made. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looks heaps better, from your reading on the subject, do you know the cause of death and where he was burried? The sentence on his death is lonley there on its own.--nixie 00:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is no information on his last days or burial site. Some of the best resources are the contemporary ones that are from before his death. I have e-mailed his great grand niece who is listed on a site as researching his family. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looks heaps better, from your reading on the subject, do you know the cause of death and where he was burried? The sentence on his death is lonley there on its own.--nixie 00:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was indeed having some trouble formulating a more reasonable sectioning format as was noted in the peer review. I strongly prefer the section formatting changes that User:Harro5 has now made. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)