This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I can't be totally sure how I would read it the first time through because I had already calculated her age at publication time from birth year and publication year before I got to this part of the article.
IMHO (generally), it's not enough to just be a meaning that someone would likely derive from reading the text. We also should avoid cases where a reader may not get our meaning the first time and has to go back and reread or find other clues to figure out what we meant. Better if they can read straight through and not think about what it means.
It's easy to search for the phrase "years old" but not so easy to search for statements of age that don't say "years old". (or at least I don't have in mind a good way that would work with cirrus)
That problem applies both when searching mainspace for examples as well as when searching within the MOS.
your edit summary said I think that's understood from the context.
That's a matter of opinion unless someone can find a scientific study or a relevant past discussion. Any other opinions?
No, "admit I wasn't confused" is not a fair statement. Rather, I gave an explanation for why I may not have been a neutral test subject. (I read infobox and made a calculation before reading the relevant part of the article). In any case, are there any objections besides you think it's already obvious? do we have any guides/manuals that cover age as number without "years old"? as stated above I already tried searching WP:MOS but didn't have good search terms to use. --Jeremyb (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)