User talk:Brianboulton/Archive14

Re:The Bartered Bride

Thanks for telling me about it. I will be glad to help out. I'll check it when it is on the peer review or earlier. Have a nice day..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I added some more comments. The article is really excellent and you can expect my support at FAC. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Greets. I changed the image of the Chateau in Litomyšl in the Smetana article. I think that this one is better. It's funny because I've been in Litomyšl few days ago accidentally - and I really love that town. If you need something, just contact me :) cheers --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Voorhis redux

I haven't forgotten your question about Jerry Voorhis's ancestry. His book on his grandfather sheds no light on it. I'm still hoping to find out more when I view the Voorhis papers when I'm in California the end of the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Long ago you did a peer review...

Hi Brian. Long ago you did a peer review on an article of mine. I never thanked you for that. I was little confused, because I didn't know Wikipedia so well. Thank you very much for that review, even if the thanks is five months late! I really appreciate it. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 15:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

[1]

Is this good enough for the article? I'd have to do a new restoration (the University copyright theirs), but will do so if you think it worth having. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, it would be very much worth having in the BB article, though not I think critical to the article's possible promotion to FAC. So take your time, and in due course it can be added. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

German

I double checked at Wiktionary and the plural is actually "Leitmotive". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this work?

You mentinoed in the Choral symphony review that the following sentence needed greater claraity: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies along his own lines, combining purely musical elements that made up the overall form of the symphony with the extra-musical ability inherent in the symphonic poem to inspire listeners to imagine scenes, images, or moods."

What about this: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies, in both cases following the same compositional practices and programmatic goals he had established in the symphonic poem in the multi-movement form of the symphony"? Jonyungk (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The above version is better; still awkwardly phrased, though I can understand it. However, I have simplified it down to: "Liszt wrote two choral symphonies, following in these multi-movement forms the same compositional practices and programmatic goals he had established in the symphonic poem." How about that? Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Irving v Lipstadt review

Hey,

First, thanks for taking the time to do a peer review. I believe that I have addressed most of your feedback. You said I should let you know when I do so.

I'm still not sure exactly what to do with the first section. I removed the text that was copied word for word per your review. Do I need to write something new in each of them? Do you think I should just delete the section and assume a basic knowledge of the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and English libel law? Are there any templates that say something like "a basic knowledge of x is required for this article"? The reason I included them was because I felt that articles ought to be relatively self contained. Do you agree?

Incidentally, I have nominated my article for GA status.

Some links to save you some time:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1
• Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt
• Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt --TachyonJack (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, please do wait a few days. I just got a few books from the library about the trial, so I plan to do some expanding when I can find the time.TachyonJack (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have executed most of my plans for revision and expansion. I think it would be helpful if you would do the review now. Moni3 has offered to do a GA review, and I would like to be as ready for it as possible. If you can, please hold off on reviewing the 'Trial' section, which I still have yet to properly expand.

Thanks! —TachyonJack (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Brian. I have been trying to expand the 'Trial' section, and right now I am stuck. I don't know how I should organize it. I am not happy with the way I was planning to do it:

• opening
  • claimant
  • defendant
• testimony
  • evans
  • pelt
  • etc.
• closing
  • claimant
  • defendant

as it does not seem to lend itself to a comprehensive, natural presentation of the material I have available to me (mostly in the form of the 4 books about the trial that I got from the public library). I brainstormed on paper, and then transferred the results to Wikipedia (you can find the results here). But of the different styles I came up with, I don't really know which to choose from. If you have some time, would you look my ideas over, and possibly offer me your insights or preferences?

Should I continue to write as previously planned (in comment tags I had added some planned headings)? Delete all headings, and just write, hoping order will emerge from chaos? Decide on a different way to organize it? I realize that I will ultimately have to make these decisions myself (or give up and hope somebody else will do it), but I could use some guidance from an experienced editor. --TachyonJack (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bartered Bride

I'm so sorry, but I am slammed and cannot possibly look at this until September. Again, apologies! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Far too late, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

Right. I'll do what I can to help, though, having been on holiday throughout much of the work, I'm never going to manage as much as you have done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a few helpful suggestions will do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Your ancestor's article passed FA within the last hour, putting it on the course to appear main page on Aug 17, I hope. Thanks for the help. Some FAC's damage the article, this one really helped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

Have read through the article and want to look at it again at least once more before making detailed comments, but so far it looks extremely good. Jonyungk (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile

I'm not sure, with my talent for convoluting what should be simple, whether the following from the "Words and music as equals" section of Choral symphony is understandable:

Stravinsky said about the texts of his Symphony of Psalms that "it is not a symphony in which I have included Psalms to be sung. On the contrary, it is the singing of the Psalms that I am symphonizing".[28] This decision was as much musical as it was textual. Stravinsky wanted to employ considerable counterpoint in his symphony. This meant many situations where two or more musical voices would function simultaneously, independent in the shape of their melodic lines and in rhythm yet interdependent harmonically upon one another; they would sound very different when heard separately yet harmonious when heard together.[37] To facilitate maximum clarity in this interplay of voices, Stravinsky used "a choral and instrumental ensemble in which the two elements should be on an equal footing, neither of them outweighing the other".[37]

Mahler's intent in writing his Eighth Symphony for exceptionally large forces was a similar balance between vocal and instrumental forces; it was not simply an attempt at grandiose effect,[26] though the composer's use of such forces earned the work the subtitle "Symphony of a Thousand" from his press agent (a soubriquet which has stuck to the symphony to the present day).[38] Like Stravinsky, Mahler employs these forces on an extensive and extended use of counterpoint, especially in the first part, "Veni Creator Spiritus". Throughout this section, according to musicologist Michael Kennedy, Mahler displays considerable mastery in manipulating multiple independent melodic voices.[39]

Jonyungk (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help on this, and glad I could help on The Bartered Bride. Jonyungk (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Joel Selwood

Oh, I couldn't possibly pass up an opportunity such as this. Especially after seeing your work at FAC. Thankyou very much. Despite it's popularity in Australia, AFL articles are seriously lacking. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sure you'll come through with flying colours. Keep up the good work. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll have a look through. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking much better, thanks. Although I don't really understand when to use "no-break spaces." Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the peer review is finished, would it be too early to nominate for FAC? Aaroncrick (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much sir. I'll ask User:Boomtish the original main contributor to the article, although this editor isn't around too much these days. All the best, Aaroncrick (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Choral symphony

I've archived the peer review for this article and nominated it to FAC. Jonyungk (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support, the declaration and the copy editing. All are greatly appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

PR backlog (tell me the old old story)

I like the idea. I had also thought about limiting peer reviews like they do at FAC - a nominator could not open a new PR until all their current PR requests had reviews and had been replied to. Would it make sense to say something like that in the boilerplate notice too? Or would it make sense to tell them to ask one or two people listed at WP:PR/V for a review? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hijacking Brian's page for this, but I (knock on wood) should be back doing sources, etc at PR after next week. My small spurt of travel over the summer should be done then, I hope. I've felt bad because I've not done much at PR this spring... which was on my list of "things to do". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth, hope your travels have gone well. As to the point about limiting editors to one PR at a time, as I said on the WP:Peer Review talkpage, my concern is that editors will simply bypass the PR process and send their half-baked articles straight to FAC. There's rather too much of that already. For the moment, I will amend the boilerplate notice to suggest editors take the initiative in seeking reviewers. But it saddens me that so few of those who nominate to peer review are prepared to help the process out by doing some reviewing themselves. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. The backlog got down to two at one point this spring, then started climbing. I reviewed a bunch during the first half of 2009, but watching the pile grow can be a little daunting. I'll keep plugging away as time, patience, and energy permit. It sure would be nice if a lot of editors worked on the pile. Finetooth (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I somehow missed your reply at the PR talk page, sorry. Always glad to have more help - thanks Ealdgyth! Thanks too Brian and Finetooth. I will keep plugging away as I am able to too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also wondered about 1) saying something to those editors who seem to frequently have articles in the PR backlog (but I'm not sure what to say - maybe encouraging them to work on improving one article at a time, then using the experience gained to work on the next instead of nominating several at a time on comics or South Africa - to pick two at random) and 2) Making a sort of quid pro quo request of people who ask me to do reviews (I would be glad to review this per your request, would you please review one or two articles on the backlog in return?). What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I did one, at BB's request. I found that most of the interesting ones were taken ... I'll try to get to another within a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did, and thanks. The backlog is receding a bit, and with three relatively quiet days coming up, we may be down to mid-teens by mid-week. I'll give further thought to how we should word our boilerplate, which I haven't issued yet. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Iravan/archive1

Thanks for my comments on the Iravan PR. I had some queries. Please take a look again. As a non-Indian and non-Hindu, your views reflect the views of the average wikipedia reader. I request you if you have the time, please review the other sections too. Please alert me about jargon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. If the PR is closed, continue your comments on article talk. Thanks for your help.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Allergies

In a fug of allergies, cant do very much Re: Bartered Bride for the moment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton

Replied to your comments, here. And thanks for the review. :)--Giants27 (c|s) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

Brian, please check your email. Jappalang (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Items sent. Jappalang (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vengeance

Thanks for your partial review of Vengeance (2009 film). I took your suggestions into consideration and I am ready for the rest of the review. (talk) 4:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton PR

Sure. I'd be glad to. I took a quick look just now and added some en dashes and a few commas. I'll read it carefully tomorrow when my eyes are fully open. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done and posted to the article's PR page. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch article?

Hi Brian, Finetooth and I are thinking about writing a "Common problems (issues?) seen at Peer review" article for the Signpost and listing the most common issues seen. Then perhaps adding a link to that to boilerplate for pasting into weak articles for further reference. Off the top of my head I would have: Lead, refs, images (lots on each of these three), short paragraphs, failing to provide context for the reader, writing from an in-universe perspective for fiction articles, perhaps header issues, not sure what else. Would you be interested in working on something like that? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

Kindest regards and congratulations for your fine work on this. Should be nominated to be listed among Wikipedia's best articles. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Smetana operas

The underlying template for {{Smetana operas}} —{{Composer navbox}}— doesn't use the parameter |alt=, so your edit will unfortunately have no effect (apart from increasing the footprint of the template). All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride at FAC

Thanks for letting me know you nominated this to FAC. I have left comments in support of its promotion, which it well deserves. You did a great job. Jonyungk (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

right, just to let you know that all the adjustments have been made to the article, following your suggestions (for the exception of "the queer-like smell" which is what the residents of the town referred to as the perquilar smell that the linoleum gave out, i'm not sure how i should get around this). Kilnburn (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i have sorted it all out and more importantly i have "taken" my time doing this (i agree with this). however, this is for the exception of the no-break spaces (what are these exactly?) and replacing the abbreviation of "mi" with mile instead (how do i change this so that in the forumla "mi" is replaced with "mile" and why is this abbreviation perfectly exceptable in the infoboxs of feature articles such as Neilston and Sheffield?).Kilnburn (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

what else do you think needs to be done on the article? Kilnburn (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (p.s. i'm going to add more info to the economy section)

eo:Nova Suda Gronlando

Hi Brian. Yet another one of your fine articles is now readable in Esperanto and successfully passed FAC. By the way I have to tell you I've been getting very positive feedback from the Esperanto readership about these Antarctica-related articles, which is why I keep working on them. Keep up the great work and have a nice day, Thomas Guibal (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of College of William & Mary people

Just wanted to let you know that I finished editing List of College of William & Mary people and await your input. I honestly don't know if there's much else that can be done to it to make it FL worthy – it's pretty darn good if I say so myself. I'm also posting this same message to Finetooth. Jrcla2 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've addressed the issues that you raised - please see my response on the discussion page. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana/archive1

Hey, just wanted to let you know I copyedited the aforementioned article, so feel free to revisit if you get a chance. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A peer review

I would be extremely grateful if you could complete a peer review for an article which needs some prose work. Since you are a prose expert, evidently, I was wondering if you would be interested. Thanks, endlessly, ceranthor 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It may take me a few days to get to it, but I'll do it. Meanwhile, have you responded to the points raised at the recent FAC by Tony and Maralia? Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I might have missed some though. I'll run through just in case. ceranthor 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bartered Bride illustrations

Hello Brian. I still have my programme from the 1998 ROH performance at Sadler's Wells. There are two colour PD illustrations in it which might add to the article. One is an 1857 engraving of a Czech harvest festival and the other is the cover of the 1847 score for The Bohemian Polka by Hermann Louis Koenig. It can be cropped to show just the couple dancing. If you think they'd be useful, let me know. I'll be happy to scan and upload them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Could you upload so I can view these? Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Czech Harvest Festival.jpg and File:Bohemian Polka.jpg (I uploaded the uncropped version of this one, can crop if you want). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Being a busybody here, but these can be moved to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

Hello,

You made some initial comments in a peer review for this article two weeks ago and told me to post on your talk page if too much time passes until you return. Two weeks have passed and a bot just archived the review page. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

North Road (stadium) FAC

Hi there. Thanks for the comments you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Road (stadium)/archive1. I have now responded to those comments, and I would appreciate it if you would take another look at the article. Thanks very much. – PeeJay 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

Meaning the Archbishop of Canterbury, of course! Unfortunately, the URAA restores the copyright for this painting. Laszlo's works did not come into the public domain of UK until 2008, so the US gives copyright protection for any of his works that have been published. This painting of Lang was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16, and hence its US copyright is 95 years (up to 2029—1932 + 95 + 1). Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there will be PD (either US or UK) pictures of the man in his Canterbury garb. However, I found some (PD in US only, could still be copyrighted in UK) of him in his stint as the Archbishop of York. I will upload them later. There is this postcard of him, which I think can be uploaded (probably do it later). Also, a postcard of him as the Bishop of Stepney is up for bidding at eBay... would you want to buy it (heh)? Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I give you File:Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of York (1918).jpg and File:Cosmo Lang, a Peer.jpg, not high-quality images, but at least PD as far as concerned in US (not to be moved to Commons unless their authors cannot be reasonably identified, or can be proven to be dead beyond 70 years). I am still in two minds whether to upload his 1910 postcard photo; it is the best quality image so far, but I have no reliable sources to back up that it is published in 1910 (no sure inferences either). Jappalang (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Archbishop of York, c. 1910; young looking, eh?
• 
  Perhaps 1911–1916?
• 
  Archbishop of York, 1918; getting old here... lost his hair in 8 years?
• 
  Participating in the procession
• 
  For the Archbishop of Canterbury section (as it faces to the right)?

Actually, I think you could do with the 1910 and the 1918 photos to show how much he has aged in those years, perhaps. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian, the actual record for that image in MS Murray 636 is here. It is part of a manuscript and the artist is unknown, but most definitely dead before the turn of the century. Unfortunately, the manuscript, and hence, the drawing was not published before the University of Glasgow put up the digital copies: "It is not known whether Hopkirk intended to publish the manuscript which contains an important collection of ink drawings of Glasgow buildings by an unidentified artist.".[2] UK copyright law is clear that in such an event, the previously unpublished work is copyrighted 70 years after it is made public (1998, according to webarchive—http://web.archive.org/web/20000829161357/special.lib.gla.ac.uk/msslst.html); hence, the drawing in MS Murray 636 is copyrighted until 2069. However, see below. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 

By the way... it seems that this building is terribly unloved... everyone seems to call it an "unsightly" horror. Only one (a Londoner) praises it as a beauty (probably a fringe view or "paid editing"). Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another by the way, Couch boy licensed File:Glasgowbarony.jpg under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, so it is not a "free image" per the project's definition. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:AbpCosmoLang.jpg seems okay for use; the earliest known publishing I can find is 2005, and Lupo showed the artist to be Laszlo. If evidence turns up that its earliest publishing is before 1978, then it would be a candidate for deletion, but thus far, I think it is quite doubtful. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to soothe my curiosity; if you have the time, could you take a look at volume 4 of the Dictionary of British Portraiture (in a library) to see what portrait of Lang (if any) is published there? Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I wanted to make sure I said thank you, however belatedly, for all your helpful comments on Tom Swift (which I think I've now addressed) - and for your help and support on Nancy Drew. It's much appreciated. Ricardiana (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Hi Brian. I cleaned up teh article according to your suggestions and also did a thorough copyediting as best to my abilities. Can you take a look and say whether it still needs work? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for your encouragement. I have approached some of them. Actually at present all of us, the music related editors are kinda busy with a disaster. The Billboard site has completely revamped itself and hence there are around 25,000 articles in Wikipedia, whose sources donot work. Its a calamity I say!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumination syndrome

I wanted to thank you once again for doing a peer review of this article. Your comments are extremely helpful, and will all be put to use in the next couple days when I make my rounds through it. I'm actually glad that you don't have an understanding of the subject, as you can approach it from the position of an uninformed casual reader.

There was one point you made though that I wanted to correct you on for your own future reference: The history section shouldn't be at the top in medical articles (Per WP:MEDMOS). I made the mistake myself and another editor moved it to that position.

That aside though, again, thank you very much! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (though it doesn't seem particularly logical) Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree... History should be first in any article since it gives a good introduction and deals with the past, leaving the rest of the article to deal with the present. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Sorry to hear about the dispute - I did not realize I was a fanous dispenser of oil on troubled waters, but will try to do my part. I read the article and supported its FAC just now. I think I would point out several things on the talk page (and will be glad to add these there myself if you think it appropriate).

1. First, one of the Five pillars is ignore all rules (or as the five pillars page puts it so nicely "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here".) The guidelines are just that and are descriptive, not prescriptive, and there is no requirement to slavishly follow any WIkiproject's guidelines.
2. Second, there are only four articles listed at Category:FA-Class Opera articles and only one is an opera (Agrippina, as you pointed out). So The Bartered Bride (TBB) follows the example of the only FA about an opera.
3. Third, the FAC for TBB in the form your prefer has 12 supports so far, no opposes, and no comments on the order. Aggripina had seven supports in its FAC and no comments on its order either.
4. Fourth and finally, I think if this can't be resolved amicably I owuld suggest either an RfC after the FAC closes, or perhaps a Third opinion. I think either would back your version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on it being promoted! I see from the BB talk page that others have agreed with the order too. On furhter consideration this morning (before reading anything here), I thought it might be useful to discuss this on the Opera project's talk page too. Perhaps the guidelines should be changed to allow either order (especially since the only two FAs on operas follow the same order). In any case, congrats on yet another fine article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Butting in here ;-). From past experience, the 'policeman' will now back off this issue at least at BB. I definitely think it's worth bringing up at the Opera Project, but you might want to think about leaving it until the autumn, unless another brouhaha arises before that. Many of our regular members are away during the summer months – I'll be gone for almost all of August – which might make a proper discussion difficult. But I'll leave that up to you and would of course support your proposal. As far as I'm concerned the guidelines should be already considered flexibile. They were intended to suggest necesssary/desirable sections, but not decree a fixed order. Most people interpret them sensibly. The last thing I want to see is the notion of the OP 'allowing' or 'forbidding' things in opera articles. I personally find it embarrassing. (Brian, there's another message on my talk page for you.) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Double promotion

Thanks for the news on The Bartered Bride and Choral symphony. Mutual backslapping is definitely in order; however, neither promotion would have been possible without all your effort, so extra backslaps go to you. And all this on the same day that Symphonic poems (Liszt) became featured article of the day—something unexpected in itself. This is really spectacular news. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard peer review

Thanks very much for your work on this peer review - I'll work on fixing the various issues that you raised. If it's not much to ask, would you mind doing an informal peer review of a sister article, Sara Northrup Hollister, about L. Ron Hubbard's second wife (MSH was the third)? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't do it immediately. Ping again in a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, will do. Thanks again. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Toft/archive1

Hi, I've shortened the caption you mentioned - have a look and see what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support - I'm glad we could compromise. I normally would place such text in the body of the article, but with such scant information on Toft I couldn't find any other place for it. Thanks for being understanding. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm grateful you could accomodate my concern. I look forward to seeing it promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

William Cosmo Gordon Lang

Hi there Brian, happens to be my third cousin three times removed. Before the entry was substantially revised, there was a red (no entry) embed for his father, John Marshall Lang. I have from professional genealogical sources more on John Marshall Lang than the DNB. Problem is, citing. I have the entry written, but I am loathe to be Wiki-whipped for citation crimes. What to do? BTW congrats on the Military History honours. I am a member of the CEFSG. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.Ann.landrey (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ann. The above is very interesting, and I have read your draft entry. There is some information about JML in Lockhart's biography of CGL, enough I would have though to create quite a good stub. Why don't you start with that, using the information from Lockhart, and expanding the article as published sources become available to support the other details you give? If you don't have the Lockhart book, it can easily be got from ILL. I'm a bit tied up with Cosmo at the moment, but when I have time I'll try and come up with some suggestions as to other sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

...for example, is this worth following up? Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for your lightning quick response and helpful input. Can't immediately answer your query about the Barony Church memorabilia. When I said I had the entry written, I meant first go. I am (genetically!) curious as to the spark for your interest in Cosmo Gordon Lang. Yes, I added the "William". Re Cosmo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see mention of his marriage. He was married. The "old" entry referenced his marriage. Your thoughts? I am an opera lover. I'll seek guidance from the Opera Project--if Operetta qualifies--or as directed before I edit Franz Lehar The Land of Smiles. I'm a rank newbie where is the Opera Project please embed link. The Recordings does not list the one I have in my hand with Schwarzkopf and Gedda, Gedda the Tauberlied Dein ist mein ganzes Herz! Angel 3507/L. No recording date, liner notes by Martin Cooper then editor of The Musical Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann.landrey (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Thx SineBot for the Autosign. Brian, a correction vis-a-vis my relation to Cosmo Gordon Lang: he is my 3rd cousin 2 times removed, making JML my 2nd cousin 3 times removed. Awaiting developments, I remain, yr. obt. &C Ann.landrey (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)