Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Thank you

Thanks again for doing the sources check for Petrified Forest National Park, which became a featured article today. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I am very pleased to hear that. I don't do so much general reviewing at FAC these days; sources reviewing is a chore that has to be done - in the case of your article, a very light chore indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All I Want for Christmas Is You FAC

Hi Brian, thanks for your comments and explanation. I ahve addressed your comments, so I know you probably want to add more, as indicated. So please check back and cross out what I've fixed and whatever else you need to . Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you cross out the last one and maybe express whether you support or oppose. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
My third point has not been addressed (incidentally, the Chart performance section at present begins "All Want for Christmas is You"). Also I haven't done the full sources check yet. When I concentrate on sources questions rather than on the whole article I don't usually register support or oppose, although clearance on sources is a prerequisite for FA promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Brian. I left comments for you and fixed those sources up like you pointed out. Please check back and maybe give a viewpoint if you comfortable. Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Got those last two done for ya :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Carl Nielsen

Hello Brianboulton. It has been suggested (on the article's talk page) that you might be prepared to lend a helping hand with further work on the Carl Nielsen article. I've done a fair amount of work on it (and on articles covering Nielsen's compositions) over the past month but am now wondering how to go forward. I am a bit worried about two things in particular. First, it seems to me that the descriptions of Nielsen's compositions could perhaps be further summarised given the fact that there are now links to separate artices, but others think that some of the shorter ones should be expanded. Second, I am concerned that a number of paragraphs in the article (e.g. on Nielsen's symphonies) have no inline references although they appear to have been taken from literature by David Fanning and/or Robert Simpson. It would not be difficult to replace them with fully referenced material but I am not too happy about deleting the work of others. I would very much appreciate your views on these points and any other advice you would like to offer on the article. It goes without saying that you are also of course most welcome to contribute to the article yoursef. - Ipigott (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can help much with Neilsen, since I know little about him (though I do have my father's old 1950s recording of the infamous Tuxen version of the 5th symphony)). Also, I am completely bogged down with projects and reviews at the moment. I've had a quick glance at the article; my main issue is that the "Music" section should discuss Neilsen's work in broad, general terms by genre, rather than presenting thimblefuls of analysis on individual works. See, for example, the articles on Bedrich Smetana, William Walton and (a slightly different approach) Gustav Mahler. You should not be reticent about replacing unsourced material with properly cited text, nor of replacing cited material if you've got something better. I really don't really have time to help more, but I will be happy to review the article when it reaches reviewable form. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll try to follow up on the points you raise. - Ipigott (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There...

Wikipedia:Peer review/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive1 I stepped in and did a pre-FAC pop culture PR for you. (whimpers) See my talk page for further on it... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Octavia Hill

I've done a substantial, though not exactly epoch-making, revision and expansion, and put the lady forward for peer review. Any suggestions will be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks in pretty good shape after a quick readthrough - I will review it properly in a few days. Meantime I have made one tweak, and have upgraded its class to B; it is obviously better than start-class as it now stands. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I had a psychic message from her via my friend Madame Arcati: she approved of your Talbot Baines Reed article and thinks you must be a very respectable young man. Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Your psychic is obviously a fraud, dismiss her at once. Nice of her to appreciate Reed, though. At present I am bogged down with Evelyn Waugh, God rot his socks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Informal advice requested

Hi Brian. I think the two non-free images are unable to be justified in terms of fair use in the current state of the article. I agree that seeing the subject in various stages of his life fleshes him out; however, the NFCC policy would require critical commentary on his appearance to justify the photographs' inclusion. Has anyone particularly commented on Waugh's appearance during those stages of life (1930 and Waugh in his 60s)? Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian, I am taking a look at it, although this will take a few days (I would come on to Wikipedia for a few hours sporadically for the time being). I will list any concerns at the peer review. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive1

Hi Brian

Just wondering if you might have time to revisit the above and see if I have satisfactorily addressed the points you raised....?

Many thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

All points now addressed, should you have time to pop by again :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts (or is it pence?)

Hi Brian, Truthkeeper88 and I have cleaned up The Story of Miss Moppet after the discovery that the main author was a sockpuppet of a banned user with a tendency too closely paraphrase material in sources. There are still a few loose ends, and one involves British currency. The current sentence is Ten thousand copies of The Story of Miss Moppet were released in a panorama format priced at 1/- in November 1906 and another 10,000 copies in December 1906. I imagine most Britons will know immediately what 1/- means, but most ofthe rest of the world will not. Is there any sort of standard way of stating this that is less cryptic? I had thought of "1 shilling". Any advice you could give would be appreicated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Most Brits under, say, 45 will not know what 1/- signifies. "1 shilling" is fine; if I were writing it I'd probably say "a shilling", but that's a matter of personal style. So, a sockpuppet gets an FA - and I okayed the sources! Oh, dearie dearie me. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of penny, could you revisit the FAC for Lincoln cent and respond to my replies to you? How goes Waugh? I saw your note about the pictures, I think on Jappalang's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll update the sources review later today, and try to do a full review this weekend. As for the other matter: Waugh is hell. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the best puns ever on wiki ... Yes, some bios can be like that. Khrushchev nearly buried me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the advice, and don't feel bad about not catching the sock or the close paraphrases. I peer reviewed the article and supported at FAC and was so helpful that s/he added me as a co-nom after the FAC was done. I did not catch any of the close paraphrases - the article used mostly books, almost all of which have now been checked. Live and learn. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Need some advice

I need help with regards to Marilyn Manson sources. I was told by User:Iridescent and User:Ealdgyth to approach you. I was wondering if I could reference The Nachtkabarett for an article I've been working on (Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)). I have been given permission by the site's creator to use it as a source, however, I'm not sure if Wikipedia recognizes it as a 'reliable' and 'high quality'. It is generally regarded in the Marilyn Manson fan community as one of the leading, of not definitive, compendium of information relating to the band and its creator, Nick Kushner, has direct connection with the band's frontman. However, given that even interviews from unfortunately lesser known webzines have been call into question in my recent brush at peer review and good article assessment, I'm not sure where I stand. Thanks in advance for your reply.

-Red marquis (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the site in question. For it to be considered high-quality per FA standards, we need to know what sort of fact checking is done. This can be established from news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc, or you can show a page on the site that gives its rules for submissions/etc, or you can show it is backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods. There may be other ways that would work, too. This site claims to have "been featured on MTV Germany, world renown artist Gottfried Helnwein's official site and has been utilized in numerous university course lectures and term papers around the world". If these claims can be substantiated independently, then I'd say it's OK to use it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Will this video from the Biography Channel (who recently did a bio on the singer) suffice? They used the site's founder Nick Kushner as interview and consulting producer. He appears and is noted in the first video at around 0:49 seconds.

Straight from Bio's site: http://www.biography.com/articles/Marilyn-Manson-504532?part=0

Thanks for your input. -Red marquis (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Henry J. Wood

I hardly dare mention this, but I have Sir Henry up for peer review too. This is what we recently-retired old buffers get up to. I am not neglecting my Delius studies, and have ordered a copy of Beecham's book. Tim riley (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Lee Gardner review

Thank you for your attention to detail regarding the sources for the FA review. Let me know if my responses addressed your questions or if you have any additional recommendations. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the New York Jets

The FAC is going sort of badly, and given the work I had to do to boil down the article from a much longer state, the FAC may have been premature. I am hopeful I can still save it though, and am looking for someone to give it a ce. It is still a long article, though and I understand if the fact that you are currently at Waugh prevents you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm roughly a week benind schedule with Waugh, but am now aiming to have it at peer review by the end of Thursday. Once I've done that, and a couple of other promised favours, I'd be pleased to look at the Jets - I need a change of scenery. Whether a ce can swing it I don't know - there seems to be some heavyweight opposition, and I'm inclined to think the nom was indeed premature. But I doubt whether the delegates will archive it just yet, so I'm prepared to give it a go, though this probably won't be before Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, hopeful that a copyedit by you will cause them to reconsider. If you think it is far gone, I'll withdraw it once the penny drops and I can insert Flower Drum Song, then serve the suspension with the musical on the page. Sort of like what Real Madrid did.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The penny probably won't drop until the weekend, by which time I'll probably have been able to assess if the Jets can be saved in this atretch. If not, then it would do no harm to withdraw and let the reconstruction take place without pressure at peer review, while FDS reigns at FAC. Let us see what transpires this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite. I will be traveling a bit this weekend, but will be on now and then. Buffalo nickel is done and doing time at GAN, we can do Schicchi at your convenience. I'll be home Tuesday night. I've made hotel reservations for my Nixon in China bit, February 9. First time I'll have been to the Met in about five or six years.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I see little point in spitting into the wind. I'm rather surprised. The objections really don't seem to be about prose, they seem to be about the use of American football-related terminology, such as "made the playoffs", which is commonplace in American English. I'm going to take the hit on this one and put this on the back burner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll treat that as "request withdrawn", then, for the time being. I am having awful internet connection problems at the moment; I lost nearly all of Sunday, and today has started shakily though I'm online at the moment. Communication might be iffy for a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was obviously too hasty. The article was at one time 170K, the process of boiling it down clearly left prose problems. With luck a delegate will approve putting up FDS, which is eminently ready. Sorry about the internet. Are you ready to go on Schicchi? I have the Grove book, the Puccini sources from last time, and also a book on Puccini's later works. If you can think of any that neither of us has, I will see about getting it in. Incidentally, if FDS does well with the critics (I think it will), I am giving serious thought to Carousel which is my all time favorite musical. I saw the Hytner production with my mom and brothers, utterly beautifully done, during the waltz, they assembled the carousel on stage ... breathtaking. And the coin articles are obviously paying the bills. I will review Waugh Wednesday, when I am home. I've never read his stuff so you will have a true outside view, as you did with the Thatched Temple.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla/archive1

Hi Brian, I'm thinking of taking another run at the above to get it up to FA. Would you be willing to glance through it again? If not, don't worry, because I know you always have people asking you to do this. But if you're willing, any time would suit, no rush. Best, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly do this, as it is one of the (few) subjects I actually know something about (as I think I've told you, I have been to Lydda and Ramla). It will be a pleasure to help get this ready for FAC, though I expect difficulties; this is an area where NPOV is routinely treated as POV. It may be a few days before I can look at it, as I have agreed to review another article and to do a lengthy copyedit on a current FAC. I have also just placed Evelyn Waugh at peer review. Now, if you can spare any time to look at that old reprobate, that would be great – new eyes, etc. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that's great. Don't worry about the timing -- there's no rush for this. And I'll be happy to take a look at Evelyn Waugh. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this the former death march again? Oy geveh. Don't worry, SV, I'm staying well away from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL!! :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

A penny saved?

Would you mind looking at the FAC for Lincoln cent again? A new reviewer is raising concerns. I've tried to address them, but it might be helpful if you could give your view on his statement that the article should be copyedited again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am gathering my refs together for Johnny Skitchy. Are we doing roughly the same division of labour?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought so. Me; synopsis, musical analysis, recording history and the other listy bits. You; background, composition, reception, performance history. Then, by tradition, we mess each others' work up. It worked OK last time. On the cent matter, above, I think the latest reviewer's prose issues are mainly trivial, some indeed misguided, and I certainly don't see the need for another copyedit. I will note accordingly on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


As I wait, I'm working on Royal Maundy. Haven't gotten there yet, but your bud Cosmo Lang will get a mention. Since the monarch started doing this in person again in 1932, he or she has missed fifteen times. At seven of them, Cosmo subbed for the King.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Good for old Cosmo (were you a Seinfeld fan?). As he retired in 1942 he must have substituted 7 times in 10 years. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I couldn't stand Seinfeld ... his humour did not appeal to me. Anyway, will lay aside the coins and get cracking on Johnny.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I loved Seinfeld. THe cent has been promoted, so no need for further action there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I prefer the humour we used to import from you ... though today, British humour seems to have gotten too over the top. OK, great. I've got my Puccini sources now and will start work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
TPS: I promoted Lincoln Cent, as I feel consensus to promote had been reached. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Andy. I will continue to fine tune it; it should make a nice Lincoln's Birthday TFA sometime. Remember we had no Lincoln articles for the Bicentennial?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is OperaGlass reliable?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It belongs to Stanford University so I'd say yes. If you're in any doubt, a line to User:Voceditenore should clarify - she is generally spot on with such things. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gianni Schicchi

Since I know Wehwalt also watches your talk page, I'm killing two birds with one stone. If you need any help on sourcing or images just give me a shout on my talk page. Whatever you post there I'll reply to there. I also have my programme from the 2007 ROH production somewhere in the hell that is my study. As you probably know, ROH programmes are really mini-books, and very well illustrated. They ought to be. They cost £7 now! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Are you going for FA on this? If so the current images are problematic. File:Carambra, bozzetto originale per costume Gianni Schicchi (1918).JPG has entirely the wrong license. The chap who photographed the drawing cannot claim it as "own work". It's OK in the sense that the real artist "Caramba" (aka Luigi Sapelli 1865 - 1936) has been dead for 70+ years, but the documentation on Commons needs changing. File:EastonGianniSchicchi.jpg merely has a date of photograph as December 14, 1918, but no photographer credited (it's actually White Studio) or evidence of prior publication. A copyright-ok alternative, although she's not in costume is File:Florence Easton 001.png. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We are going for FA. I had not yet considered the question of images, I usually try to get text in place and then worry about the images. Seven pounds? Ouch! I've only been to the ROH once since the renovations and do not remember buying the programme. I don't care if Easton is in costume or not. Lauretta is not really a character who you care about what she's wearing that much. Just researching my part of the assignment, where I am having trouble is subsequent performances after 1919. Obviously there have been plenty and continue to be, it's the ones that are worthy of encyclopedic attention. Obviously Woody Allen's recent one, but what else?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, V, for your offers of help; I am sure we will be consulting you frequently. My own efforts won't see the light of day immediately - I am compiling a recording history and reading Gramophone reviews at the moment - but the article should be in better shape, say, in a week's time. W, I'll pass over anything I can raise on notable recent performances over here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, one thing you could look at is Gianni's life outside the Trittico (usually in a double bill). One particularly odd pairing was at the Met with Gianni (sung in English) + Salome, of all things!! Others have sort of a rationale. Glyndebourne paired it with The Miserly Knight and La Scala with Eine florentinische Tragödie. The 2007 ROH one was paired with the tedious L'heure espagnole, I suppose on the grounds that they're both comic and both short. The Gianni was updated to the 1950s and very well done. Both were directed by Richard Jones. San Francisco Opera made up it's own 'trittico' putting it with La Voix humaine, and Il prigioniero. There was also a televised version ostensibly for children with Zero Mostel as Gianni.[1]. I assume you have the records from Almanacco Amadeus [2]. You could browse through them to see if there's anything noteworthy. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
All those sound good. Puccini only held the Trittico together for about two years before he gave up and allowed them to be separately produced. There's a good image here, should be PD and no trouble. I am making slow but steady progress. There is not a lot of material on the writing on GS, compared to Tosca. I've got the background section up live, but the rest is a bit more difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If you desire to see the agonies of composition, it is in this sandbox, plus what is already up (I don't know how to fix that indenting error on the lines from the Inferno, I am hoping some kind person will come along and do it for me). My future plans are to put up Buffalo nickel sometime next week. I'm also working on Royal Maundy, which will probably go to FAC around New Years', I am arranging to get some pictures of the coins and the little bags they are given in, but there is little likelihood of getting them until the end of the year. There are other articles in various half-completed states. I'm hopeful of getting serious work done on C. D. Howe, an offshoot of Dief (he played on the other team) either in time for his 125th birthday in January or else saving it to be a Canada Day article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
In about 30 years I'll be old enough to receive my Maundy Money from King William, and then you can have all the pics you need. Until then, Schicchi looks good, thus far. I will be in a better position to comment on the article's progress in a couple of days, when my own contributions start to have some impact. As to my more general plans, I hope to have Waugh at FAC by next Thursday (probably alongside your Buffalo nickel). Apart from Schicchi I have no definite further plans, just a number of ideas (a Delius biography with Tim Riley, a couple of Waugh spin-offs, and of course Nixon in China). On Schicchi, could we aim for a peer review by next Saturday (10th) with FAC perhaps a week after that? It could clear the system by the year's end, which would be tidy. Finally, while we work on Schicchi, could we use this sandbox as a message board, so that we don't clog upour respective talkpages with our communications? All we need to do s check te box regularly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?

How reliable do you think this would be as a source? This is the website it comes from. It seems to contain information from the player's granddaughter, but not too sure myself. I'm inclined to say not, but would like your view. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was timed out on the pdf file but looked at the website. As to its likely acceptance as a high-level reliable source, I quote the great Ealdgyth as follows: "To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods ... The best method is a mix of all of the above." By that yardstick, I doubt whether this one could be accepted as reliable at FAC, which is, unfortunately, true of many sites that contain tantalisingly useful information. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

TRAJQ

Looks like most issues were problems with incorrect publishers or reference tags. I left some notes about QuestFan. Thanks for taking a look! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

John Culshaw

If, per impossibile, you have a moment, I'd be glad of your thoughts on the great and good mastermind of the Decca Ring, whose article I have up for peer review. Parenthetically, I have clocked the above exchanges about Gianni Schicchi, and am at your service when the Beckmesser treatment is required. I hope very much that you've seen Andrew Shore as Schicchi – blissful! Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try, but there may be delays. Not only am I enmeshed with Schicchi, I am also trying to make progress with Waugh, and to fulfil my reviewing duties at FAC. Shore was at ROH last year; unless his Schicchi was televised I didn't see it. Doesn't he do Alberich, too? Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
No rush whatever. Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/archive1.
Message added 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive2

Ready for ya to come back :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and comments. Ready for ya!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Tagging for File:Gianni Schicchi will scene.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gianni Schicchi will scene.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this, took a look, fixed a typo in the template, and removed the warning tag from the license page. I think all is well now, but it wouldn't hurt to double-check. The error in the template involved a colon that should have been a hyphen. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this and uploaded a much higher resolution version (with a tighter crop) at File:Gianni Schicchi will scene.png. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Buoso's peeking at the camera.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the other version and put the higher resolution File:Gianni Schicchi will scene.png in the article in place of the cropped jpg version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the other file. Will try to look at Waugh at FAC in the next few days - busy in real life. Peer review has been high but not impossible (little thanks to me). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh

So there shall be no mention of Lord Burghclere, father of Waugh's first wife? Why? Tryde (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he died in 1921, Waugh never met him, Lady B. was the significant parent with whom Waugh had dealings, so there is no particular reason to mention his lordship. And why should Lady B. be excluded, as per your edit? However, I have now. added details of Lord B., using your piped link, in a footnote. Thank you for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, even if he was dead by the time Waugh met his daughter it is still of interest to the reader to know about him. The link has been there for about two years and I can't see why it should be removed. I suggest we change the sentence to "...daughter of Lord and Lady Burghclere." This way the reader is informed about both Lord Burghclere as well as the background of Lady Burghclere (daughter of the 4th Earl of Carnarvon et cetera). The article as it is now lacks information about Lady Burghclere's background and the material is also useful for linking the relationship between Waugh's first and second wives. I assume that Lady Burghclere's background with a Tory and Imperialist father was bound to clash with Waugh's lifestyle. Tryde (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_34&oldid=1146612574"