Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 109

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109

Aberfan

Hi Brian, and a very warm happy new year to you. A few months ago you were kind enough to comment on the PR for the Aberfan disaster. After a slight delay to allow some of the images to become PD, the article is now at FAC. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anbe Sivam/archive1

Hello, Brianboulton. I have nominated my first solo FAC. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved your comments at the FAC, which are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Bat FAC

We're finished. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the five FAC reviews and twenty-five source reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Source checking

Brian, I know you do a great many source checks for FAC these days. I just took on a GA review for an article with nearly 500 citations, nearly all to web pages. Is there an automated tool that will do things like identify citations with no publisher, or other missing key fields? It would be good to have a shortcut for a huge list of citations like this. If one doesn't exist, do you think it would be worth requesting a bot, or are there reasons why this sort of thing can't even be partially automated? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For FAC I generally check everything manually; the external link checker tool isn't particularly efficient and doesn't pick up when, say, the link goes to the wrong page. I don't know of any tool or bot that would show when essential information was missing from a citation. It tends to be grind, grind all the way.... For a GA, especially one with five hundred citations (what can this article possibly be??), I might do a sample check, say one in five, but there'll be no hiding place if it ever comes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was afraid there was no way out. The article is Marilyn Manson (band); I decided to look at every single publisher (much less than 500, of course, because of repeats). Fortunately for GA the consistency requirements are minimal so some of the burden goes away. The editor, MagicatthemovieS, has no FAs so far so it may not come to FAC. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

This is a ridiculously belated wish but heartfelt nonetheless. Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher

Evening Brian, and I hope all is well with you. As I may have mentioned before, I've been working on the murder of Yvonne Fletcher recently. The results are open for discussion PR; I know you are busy, but should you have time for any comments I'd be most grateful. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Hi. I was wondering if you could review sources in my FAC Margaret (singer). Most of them are in Polish. Not sure if that will be a problem. Hope to hear back from you. Regards. ArturSik (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey. The user whom I have asked to review the sources left a message on the talk page. Could you respond to that as I am not too familiar with the ref standards ? Best. ArturSik (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you link me to the message? I can't see anything on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(See also post 8 February below)

Final Destination 3 FAN

Hi. Just wondering if the changes I've made to the references will suffice or if there's anything else that you want me to change? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Brianboulton, I wanted to know if you've checked the references, and my comments, again. The FAN need explicit pass/fail statements from the contributors so even if you think that all of the references are fine and don't need further changes, the nomination still requires for you to state that. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Loss of MV Darlwyne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penryn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

fyi about sfn

Extra spaces break the functionality silently, so {{sfn|Board of Trade report 1967|p=7[spc][spc]para 40}} won't click through to notes. Actually, correct usage should be with loc= as is {{sfn|Board of Trade report 1967|p=7|loc= para 40}} Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Poppea

You may be interested in the fact that Monteverdi's master piece was chosen for the reopening (after years of restoration) of the Berlin State Opera. I enjoyed the premiere and made two related DYK, on my talk today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Kijé

I can't find the quote of this The composer's first response was to refuse the commission; a member of the production team recalled that Prokofiev "categorically rejected my proposal. His time was scheduled far into the future, he had never written music for film and he didn't know 'what kind of sauce' to put on it." in the reference you have provided. Can you try to fix this? Wrong page, maybe? Triplecaña (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The quote and its reference were given to me by another editor when I was drafting the article; I added it on 9 August 2016. I will make further enquiries with the editor in question, and report back. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps page 277: here. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Lingzhi. it looks as though I entered the wrong Robinson book in my sources list. The correct book is Robinson's biography of Prokofiev, not the selected letters. I'll make the necessary adjustment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Top of DYK?

Hi Brian, I noticed the DYK image on the main page for jean jacket and thought it looked remarkably similar to you... coincidence? Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Riga-12 moped. Fortepan 6735
Brian Boulton
  • Hmmm, well...The photo with the bike was seeemingly taken in 1976, and I did look rather like that then – Afro, shades, denims etc. So did lots of others; it was the look of the day. It's not me, alas. I remember I had a Zapata moustache, and people said I looked like the TV character Jason King, then highly popular. The photo on the right, the real me, was taken in about 1990 when I was more grown up (note the grey in the beard) but, unaccountably, still wearing that old denim shirt. Thanks for the memories! Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:EllenWilkinson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:EllenWilkinson.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kijé (Spanish version)

El teniente Kijé is now featured. Knowledge is spread across the galaxy, thanks to you! Triplecaña (talk) (edit entered 01.56, 3 February 2018)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty-six source reviews and three prose reviews you did during January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, the script is really really almost done

Source review : Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive1

Hi Brianboulton, I'd like to request if you would have time to go over and do a source review for the above. I have posted a request at the FAC talk page about a week ago and I can see that there's a hefty amount of sources to wade through on this article. Whenever you have the time though, if you are working on other things. Otherwise I can wait until a reviewer will be able to take on the task. Much appreciate your time. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the "hefty amount of sources to wade through". I did make a start, but my laptop is currently taking an age to access linked pages, so I gave up in the hope that someone else would take decide to do it. Some hope. I'll have another go, and post something on the FAC page soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years

Precious
Six years!

Did you get to writing advice on web references? - Thank you for all the reviewing you do! - I woke up knowing that my next FAC will be this, in memory of a great conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

My intended advice on web referencing got absorbed into a more general essay on "how to conduct a sources review", which is itself in abeyance while I wait to see what effect Lingzhi's prototype sources autochecker may have. See his post a couple of items up.Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, no rush, just wanting to know if I missed something. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

r on Bengal and script

Hey Brian. What's all this about "the enemy is lifted up" (ERECTUS EST INIMICUS)? When I first saw it, I thought, "The Big Unit is my enemy?" But surely that couldn't be right. So we have Bengal and the source checker script on our slate for today. As for the first, I dunno but thought SV's edits were tag-teaming with yours, kinda like a DC Superhero Team-Up or something. It never occurred to me that your respective edits might be bumping heads. I can ask her to throttle back a little while you go on with your scheduled edits... the "Lingzhi's version" that SV is referring to, BTW, is Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution... as for the script, the issue I'm pondering now is how all the various idnums/control codes ["arXiv", " ASIN", " Bibcode", " doi:", " ISSN", " JFM", " JSTOR", " LCCN", " MR", " OCLC", " OL", " OSTI", " PMC", " PMID", " RFC", " SSRN", " Zbl"] interact with each other (or don't) so I might be able to warn when one is needed... or even if that would be a useful type of warning to present... So I need to read all those descriptions... I was also mentally scheduling some time to read some of your source reviews to see what you look for, and determine whether those tasks could be aided via script. Let me know what thoughts you have on both of these things. I'm taking my cues from you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't get to "Lingzhi's version" via the link that you provide – but as I say, it's probably too late to go back to that now. As a result of the work that I, Sarah and others have done I think the article is taking shape well. There will likely be a lot of final polishing before it's ready for another stab at FAC, if that's your choice. I'll wait for sarah to finish before I resume my copyediting – and she's welcome to revisit my edits if they can be improved upon. As indeed are you and anyone else interested in improving the article.
How I do source reviews? Well, here's a rough checklist:
  • Check each online citation link to ensure that it is working and going to the stated page.
  • Spotcheck to test that the source adequately supports the text attributed to it.
  • Check online citations for format consistency. This is a matter of checking things like retrieval dates, archive links, non-italicisation of website publishers. As a current discussion on WT:FAC indicates, there are different views about how these things should be handled. As long as one acceptable method is consistently adopted.
  • Short citations: if Harvard, check each is working. In all cases check for format errors, e.g. pp/p, page range formats, ndahes in page ranges etc. In non-Harvard cases manually check that each short citation is supported by a source.
  • Check the "Sources" list (sometines called "Bibliography" or "References") Again I'm looking for format consistency. As a (former) academic who used to compile reading lists for students, I entries to be as comprehensive as possible, including publisher location and ISBN, though I understand that the latter two are not strictly required. I also check that every listed source is cited at least once.
  • As to the control codes you list, most of them are new to me, or I've not noticed them. So maybe some of these are unnecessary – I don't know.
You can perhaps see from the above that at present, source reviews can be pretty onerous, especially when faced with 250+ online links to check. If a source checking script is to be developed I'd like to see it concentrate on this aspect, which is easily the most time-consuming. There is an external links checker tool, but it does not always work well, and doesn't for example pick up when the link goes to the wrong page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
My full version is in that page's history, only a few versions back.... The page itself is blanked; some kinda administrative standard operating procedure or whatever.
Ucucha's tool (which I explicitly recommend in the increasingly lengthy description of my tool at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck) "check[s] that every listed source is cited at least once."
My tool checks for 13 issues (hopefully more soon) including "pp/p, ... ndashes in page ranges etc...publisher location and ISBN...retrieval dates, archive links," etc.
Alas, my tool does not check links, sorry.
I will see what SV wants to do.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review Margaret (singer)

(Moved message as I shall shortly be archiving)

Hi again. Unfortunately the problem still hasn't been solved. Here are the comments from the Polish speaking user. However, he's not too familiar with ref standards for popstars and neither am I. He pointed out the sources that he isn't sure about and I've left a comment underneath each one of them explaining what exactly it is (e.g. one of the sources was a website of the school she attended) and why do I think it is reliable. He also wasn't sure if the celebrity's blog can be used as a source so I guess it would be helpful if a user with the knowledge of ref standars for popstars' articles addresses the concerns. Would you be able to do that? Regards. ArturSik (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See my comment added today on the article's FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
...I'm glad to see the article has now been promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi FAC

After the first nomination, which you helped review, did not receive enough attention, I have renominated the Alex Owumi article for featured article consideration. I thought you might be interested in looking at the article again, because a lot of improvements have been made since you last left a comment. TempleM (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I will do a sources review. I don't think I'll have time for a more general review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

From Robert Griffiths

Dear Brian Boulton,

I have just come across your discussions with other WL authors about S.O. Davies. Your comments strike me as thoughtful and very fair. I am finishing a new and extended edition of my biography of SO. The research for it means that I have uncovered a few factual errors, as well as misjudgements, in my original work - which I would be happy to share with you, if you are interested. Please feel free to email me via robertdafydd@aol.com. Best wishes, Rob Griffiths176.26.49.54 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I replied to the above address, but received an address error message. So I am posting my reply here, in the hopes that you can pick it up:
Thank you for your message. I was interested to learn that you are revising and updating your S.O. biography with a view to a new edition. Naturally I would want to incorporate any corrections of fact into the WP article. Because of the way Wikipedia works, any amendments to the article's text should await the  publication of the revised book, so that the changes can be cited to a published source. It was a labour of love to develop the S.O. article, as he was a hero in my student days. I have worked on other "leftish" WP biographies, notably George Lansbury and Ellen Wilkinson - both before my time, but worthy figures. My best wishes, and thanks to you for ensuring that S.O.'s name is remembered in the current generation. A great man. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

change comments to reviews

I'll try to go back and find any old FAC comments that could be changed to full source reviews. It will take a while. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster

Riley, licensed to ping. You were kind enough to say at PR that I should ping you when Sir Osbert was at FAC. He has just checked in there. Tim riley talk 09:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I will find something to say to discomfit the old boy, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Hi Brian, hope you're well. Out of the blue this I know, but you were mentioned in this discussion as a go-to guy in the sphere of peer-reviewing...I would be honoured if you could see your way to looking over the above and perhaps make a suggestion or two on how it can (undoubtedly!) be improved...? I would be extremely grateful if you could: but if it doesn't interest you, I understand—no worries. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen Tim riley above (again)—curses!  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of my reviewing these days is related to sourcing and mundane housekeeping, but I can't resist a character like Lancaster, and I dare say I can manage the odd duke, so I'll see what I can do. I may at some future time ask for a review in return, when I can get some serious content work in. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
At your service, BB! Thanks very much. Incidentally, even the mundane—I imagine—is still essential at FAC, so no problems there. Which Lancaster, by the way—Thomas? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Osbert, per Tim above (you might like to look in there, too). Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course, Osbert! Slightly boneheaded of me that. Wilco! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cloisters

Brian, I know and can see you have a pretty heavy work load on at the moment, but can you keep this on your radar. Its at a very rewarding PR now, and there will be additions over the next few weeks. I was hoping you might be free at some-stage to have a look towards the end. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to the PR in a day or two (I might be asking a similar favour from you. shortly). Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll be holding off on moving this from PR for a week or too so no rush. Let me know when you want to tap likewise. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no more source reviews.

Sorry, no more source reviews. I will be preoccupied with other issues. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your efforts in this respect which have been most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Air your thoughts?

Would you like to take a moment and describe your views on the topic of quality vs. quantity at User:Eddie891/sandbox/Quality v. Quantity for a Wikipedia Signpost Report? Eddie891 Talk Work 18:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Hullo, me again—You were kind enough to comment at this article's (somewhat informal!) peer review, and I thought I'd let you know it's now a featured article candidate. The discussion is here, and any further comments you may wishto make would be naturally very welcome. Thanks again! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the three FAC reviews and twenty-four source reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you missed it

and my ping didn't work (not unusual I gather), I replied to your suggestions re. sourcing (here)—mostly straightforward, but there's a couple of points I need clarified in order to act upon, if that's OK wth you. Nothing to do with my needing everything spelt out in words of one syllable of course  ;) Thanks very much for looking in there Brianboulton, I appreciate it. Have a good weekend! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)@Serial Number 54129:

As far as |I can see, you've dealt with all my sources points (or someone has). I'm sure all is well now on that front. I hope to look at the article more substantively, shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Sory if I'm hassling you Brianboulton, just to say there were a couple of points you might want to bollock me over  :) Thanks for the Prose Slices though :) —SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been told that cases where the ping doesn't work are generally because the time that the ping was added to a comment is not the same as the time stamp on that comment. Or something like that. I think that if you go back and fix teh typo or something like that, then you also have to redo the sig/time stamp, or something like that. Mot sure. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Some FAC archaeology

(see also a mega-thread on WT:FAC}

A little in-depth analysis of the first three months (JFM) of 2017 provides some possibly interesting figures which, if they are taken as typical, may provide some useful insights into how the FAC process is currently working.

Promoted articles
  • In the three-month period 92 articles were promoted, from 69 separate nominators (some had several successful noms during the period). Of these 69 nominators:
20 had no previous successful nominations. I haven't investigated how many previously unsuccessful noms they may have made.
16 had between 1 and 4 previous successful nominations
33 had 5 or more previous successful nominations
  • The average duration for a successful nomination was 38 days (range 10–116). Note: in 2008 the avearge duration per successful nom was 15 days.
  • Of the 92 promoted articles, 9 had been nominated unsuccessfully at least once before. The other 83 were at FAC for the first time.
  • 66 of the promoted articles had early passed GA, 21 had passed A-class reviews and 10 had been peer reviewed. 18 passed FAC without any prior review, but these were chiefly from nominators with heroic records of past FAC success.
Archived articles
  • In the same period 36 articles were archived, from 36 separate nominators:
23 had no previous successful nominations – again, I haven't investigated their prior history of unsuccessful nominations.
8 had between 1 and 4 previous successful nominations
5 had 5 or more previous successful nominations
  • The average duration for an archived nomination was 36 days, excluding 4 speedy withdrawals (no comparable figure for 2008).
  • Of the 36 archived articles, 11 had been nominated at least once before. The other 25 were at FAC for the first time.
  • 30 of these nominations had passed GA, 3 had passed A-class, 13 had been peer reviewed.
  • 9 of these archived nominations have subsequently been promoted to FA.

Some conclusions may be intuitive (e.g. the more experienced the nominator, the more likely an article is to pass), others less so. For example:

  • There's no significant difference, on average, in time spent at FAC by ultimately promoted articles and that spent by archived articles.
  • The extent of prior review doesn't seem to be a major factor in promotability – the archived articles have much the same prior review profile as the promoted ones.
  • How does an article that is peer reviewed, passes GA and passes A-class, still get archived at FA (there are two such examples)?

Food for thought, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Monmouth School

Tim riley - Dear Brian, first off, I hope that you're keeping well. Your FA analysis above is indeed interesting. Mine is a specific FA-related question. If you had time, and inclination, I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether you think Monmouth School has FA potential. It's now GA, following Tim's thorough GAR scrub, which will have removed any infelicities of my own that would have been particularly painful for you to read! My particular query relates to the sourcing. It is heavily dependent on the small number of histories written, in every case but one, by masters or former masters. In the case of the Kissack, the only one that wasn't, he was still an amateur, rather than a professional, historian, although he gained a reputation as Monmouth's foremost local historian. I was looking at this, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Judd School/archive1, the FAC for the only UK school article that has made FA, where you had an interesting discussion on this very issue. I'd much appreciate any thoughts you may have. If I decide to press on, I shall, of course, go down the PR route first. If it doesn't appeal, or you have too much else on, just say. Absolutely no offense will be taken. With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on the Judd School FAC was somewhat inconclusive, but there seemed to be general agreement that sources emanating from the school itself, or from masters/former masters, were OK if confined to facts about the school itself, rather than general issues such as education policy. For the Monmouth article I haven't studied exactly how you've used your main school-based sources (Edwards, Ward) but the combined total of citations to them is less than half the overall total so they are not overpredominant. I don't see anything wrong with Kissack as an independent source – he was a recognised local historian – and you've found a wide range of other sources to use. So my initial impression is that you'll be OK on this aspect of the article, but I'll be happy to look again in more detail when the article comes up for review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Brian - very much appreciated. I’m currently looking for other sources. Found a fair bit from another local historian Fred Hando. I’ll keep looking and developing the history sections which I think need more work. As and when I push it to Peer Review, I’ll ping you and your input would be greatly valued. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi

I responded to your comments on the featured article nomination of the Alex Owumi article several weeks ago. Could you please get back to me on those, because I have fixed the issues you pointed out? If there are no longer any issues, feel free to support the nomination. TempleM (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on the FAC page. I don't record "supports" when I confine my review to sources, though I might oppose if the sourcing is wholly inadequate, which is not the case here. Regardles of the number of recorded supports, the coordinators will look for a confirmation that the sources meet the FA criteria before they promote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have responded to the additional concerns you brought up on the FAC page. TempleM (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another music article with FAC in mind

Taking the cap round for contributions, I have André Messager up for peer review. He's rather a neglected figure now, but was the last great composer of opéra-comique and opérette, and rather close to my heart in a quiet sort of way. If you are moved to look in and give me your comments it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 17:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

He does have a dissipated twinkle, doesn't he? Roués R Nous. I hope I can still manage one when I'm that age ten years or so hence. Tim riley talk 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

WestJet Encore comments

Thank you for your comments about FAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/WestJet_Encore/archive1 . This was a systems problem from using the citations template. I did not know that "The Globe and Mail" was a work and not a publisher. When entered as a publisher, there are no italics. When entered as a work, there are italics. It should be The Globe and Mail. I believe I have fixed the errors. What a chore it was! Like pulling weeds. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made further fixes. Thank you again for your instructions on how to fix the italics problem. Without your explanation, it would have been very time consuming and trial and error to figure out how to add or remove italics. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

I would appreciate it if you performed a source review on this FAC as per the FAC coordinators' suggestion. Do let me know if you wish to or not, Brian. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied to your source review in case you did not receive my ping.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This is my reply on the FAC page in case you didn't notice:
"Brianboulton, thank you very much for the source review. I have resolved almost all of your comments. For the "Baskaran 2011" reference, I don't know how to add the No. 10 in the reference. Same for Guy 2007 ("A Miller's Road...") (The same newspaper number, not the page number). "Manigandan" is his first name as per The New Indian Express article. The Madras Mail reference was obtained by the co-nominator, Kailash29792, here and here. The page numbers are not listed and the original source is nowhere be found. I've changed the "Film News Anandan" reference to a "deadurl=yes" one as the original link is dead now. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last comment."
I do apologise if I'm sounding a bit persistent but I'm adding this FAC as a part of the WikiCup challenge 2018, in which I'm participating. I would appreciate it if you took a look. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guy Burgess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Imogen Holst scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Imogen Holst article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 12, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this creative woman, who !conducted, danced, played the piano, taught, wrote lots of books, started orchestras and choirs, ran festivals... and so on. She never really cut it as a composer, and her music is not much heard, but her huge contribution to Britain's musical life over many decades is widely acknowledged." and I like to see her face! - I am pleased to have the lead DYK on the same page with a childhood memory of mine, mentioning the white flag of peace. (No, I wasn't born before 1945, but the image is something I saw daily when going to school.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Mike Christie

Heads up Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

St Donat's Castle

Brian, if Guy's not keeping you too busy, and another country house wouldn't be too dull, your thoughts at the peer review for the above here, Wikipedia:Peer review/St Donat's Castle/archive1, would be very much appreciated. It does have quite an interesting story to tell. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not doing much reviewing at the moment, but I'll try and look in if it's still there in a week or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely fine, and no problem at all if other things take precedence. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Archive 105←Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_109&oldid=1139155856"