Talk:George C. Brownell

Date format for this article?
It appears that this article's first major contributor chose DMY dates for the body and the citations, with a few exceptions (as in the infobox). And then changed the body to use primarily mdy dates, presumably because of MOS:DATETIES, although they missed a few. I changed the rest of the body based on the Use mdy dates template that GhostInTheMachine added, without looking at the history. This may have been a mistake on my part, per MOS:DATERET. Now the body is MDY and the citations are DMY, which is probably not what we want. , can you please let us know your preference? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is American, so we should use American dates per MOS:DATETIES — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While most Americans use the MDY date format, I have always used the DMY format. It is used by U. S. military and the State Department for official documents like passports, so I am not alone in using that format.  Changing the article's date format to MDY fine with me.  My goal is to create B level content.  While the article hasn't been assessed yet, I think it meets the B level standard regardless of which date format is used.  Regarding the footnote dates, I think that's something that can wait until someone decides to upgrade the article to GA status.--Orygun (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
Nice work, you've done great research and pulled in a lot of information. IMO it would be best to put some of that detail into other articles, and streamline this one a little bit; specifically, the info about the 19th Oregon Legislative Assembly isn't, for the most part, about Brownell, so it feels extraneous here. However, you have found a good detailed info I didn't when I wrote that article, so it would be great to have that info in the article about the legislative session. I feel like this article is on the fence between C and B class, I've assessed as "C" because I feel that it could be improved by tightening it up and moving some of that info elsewhere, but it's possible "B" is more appropriate even without that change. Nice work. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On second thought, reassessed B, the level of research is really impressive. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)