Talk:Rembrandt (horse)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this a few times over, I believe this meets the GA criteria. Prose is readable, article is sourced and no issues with validity. Just a minor quibble:

Be consistent with ref date format. Accessdate uses the YEAR-M-D format, where as publication dates are different.

Otherwise, happy to pass once issue is acknowledged. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Actually, per Wikipedia:DATESNO#Dates, the current format (with access dates using yyyy-mm-dd format and publication using Month Day, Year) is completely acceptable. To quote: "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD...example: Jones, J. (September 20, 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05." Also, please note that consistent date formatting is not a requirement for GA status (although it is a nice thing to have). Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do's! Nothing wrong with either format, just thought GA may require dates to be consistent. Regardless happy to pass. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]