Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Modesty

I do admire your mild, understated FAC launches. Still, anything to attract attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You've seen it, then? Enjoy, enjoy. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will review it tomorrow while watching American Football on TV. Hopefully I'll be in a good mood. The fate of this FAC may rest on the performance of the New York Jets.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
O God, I'm probably done for then. Go Jets!!! Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EvelynWaughatSixty.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EvelynWaughatSixty.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the Fair Use rationale for this image and would support its fair use in the article - any reason why it was removed (assume Jappalang or someone said not to include it)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The advice was not to use it (a) because a free image of Waugh was available and (b) because the differences in Waugh's appearance did not justify a second, non-free image. I decided to play safe. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Understood - funny how being conservative keeps popping up with Waugh ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
PS DO you want me to go ahead and delete the image? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Before you do that, perhaps you could look at the Talk:Evelyn Waugh page, where Johnbod has opened a discussion on possible images that might be added. I must say that I'm not too enamoured of cluttering the article with marginal images such as are being suggested. Maybe if you floated the idea that the elderly Waugh image might qualify under fair use, perhaps a consensus would form...? But I'd rather that was done when the FAC is over, one way or the other. I don't relish another contentious debate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Waugh FAC

Duly contributed to the FAC page. (A pleasure to support, needless to say.) I have not mentioned there, not wishing to drag kippers across any trails or get the image fanciers excited, that you have not used alt-text for any of the pictures. Is this by accident or design? Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. As alt text is no longer a FA requirement, I often put this in later rather than in preparation for the FAC. It's mainly a question of finding the time... Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I will be glad to do an image review and hope to make my comments today. I have looked at the article, but not carefully read it all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to. I'm working on it now. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Warren County, Indiana

Greetings! I am not sure you would be interested in this, but I have requested peer review on the Warren County, Indiana article. Some time ago I nominated this article for FA status without fully understanding the process, so now I'm going through the PR process for the first time. You were kind enough to provide advice before, and I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will try and give this a review at PR, although the process is a little backlogged at the moment (shortage of reviewers). Also, I am heavily involved with trying to get one of my own articles through FAC, and am helping to bring another up to FAC standard, so all is rather busy at the moment, and there may be delays. Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/archive1.
Message added 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bosanquet

Thanks for the excellent review and helpful suggestions, which I've implemented as far as possible. The only thing I'd say is that Arnold was a much better bowler than Bosanquet and would probably have been prefered on a sticky wicket to an unreliable revolutionary! One other query about the article. Does it address the point that after the South Africans took over, the googly so terrorised everyone that it was thought batting would never be the same again? And should that "legacy" of the googly, particularly in that short term, be in an article on Bosie? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it about right on the legacy stuff. It is interesting that no English bowler of note followed in Bosanquet's immediate footsteps (who would you say was the next top-class English googly bowler?). Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Was there one? I'd say Tich Freeman, but the selectors never gave him a chance and he had a bad reputation against good batsmen, apparently. I can think of several mediocre ones from the 30s: Walter Robins, Freddie Brown and Ian Peebles, with Peebles probably the best for a very short time. Then Doug Wright and ... er... Ian Salisbury? England tended to trust slow left armers instead and neglected those untrustworthy wrist spinners! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Re your source comment at FAC, I'm asking around for stuff about Bosie, but I'm afraid my library (personal and public!) is a little deficient in general cricket sources. Did you have any particular books in mind which have information in them? --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Thanks for your comments and support of the article. It has been promoted and, amazingly, it will be on the Main Page this Sunday, December 19. I have no idea how you can do all this work on high quality articles at Wikipedia. Good luck with all your projects! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and congratulations on getting Flower Drum Song through. I look forward to seeing it upfront on Sunday; I am ashamed to say that I had never heard of it before this WP article appeared, so my education as been extended. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Journals

Brian, I noted your comment at the Goldcrest FAC about citing long journal articles with the full page range. I'm very reluctant to abandon what is a universal practice outside Wikipedia, and I would have thought it was logical for a reviewer to head straight for the abstract or conclusions (unless is a plagiarism check). I wonder if the following tweak addresses the perceived problem?

Spicer, Greg S (2004). "Molecular phylogeny of songbirds (Passerifor-mes) inferred from mitochondrial 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30 (2): 325–335 (especially 332). doi:10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00193-3. PMID 14715224. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It's ugly and non-standard, and I think I'd only use it if the page count is in double figures. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a universal practice outside of Wikipedia. History has a mix of either cite the exact pages or to cite the page range. Of course, history tends to have a wild variance of citation styles to begin with, but its certainly not a "universal" practice outside Wikipedia. Nor do most humanities journal articles have abstracts - they may have a very short one or two sentence overview, but no one would dream of citing that, it's purely an introduction, and it's not a universal practice anyway. I personally think it's better practice on Wikipedia to cite the exact page, given our peculiar needs of verifiability. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I particularly notice the ugliness. Given that because of Wikipedia's particular character, verification and copyvio checking is usually in the hands of non-experts in the subject, it is important that these checks are facilitated by precise citations. This means including page numbers or subsection (chapter) titles in the citation wherever possible. It will not be possible to do this in every case, and for shorter articles perhaps unnecessary. Doing this will be a little tedious for the article's author, I agree, but not half as tedious as the absence of such navigational aids is to the poor, toiling reviewer. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Evelyn Waugh images

The non-compliance with WP:CITE#IMAGE is the first big hurdle. The image link is dead, and even if alive would not have provided publication information (the key to determining US copyrights). Regardless, I think that photograph still has copyright protection in the US. The URAA would have restored and extended its US copyright to 95 years if the photograph was first published before 1978, and if published later than that, it would be 70 years after Moshe's death or 95 years since publication (if we consider Moshe's employment with the Government Press Office as a corporate authorship), neither of which is anytime soon. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I will not be using the image. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a free image of Randolph Churchill at File:Churchillwithsonandgrandsoncrop.jpg but it is not a great photo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Maundy

If the nickel is promoted tonight, I'm just going to close the PR and put up Maundy. There's nothing wrong with it that can't be cured at FAC. Of course, it will have no affect on our ability to put up Schicchi. Thank you for acting as nightwatchman and playing Tim's concerns. I got the remainder without being stumped, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll do Maundy if the Buffalo doesn't make it this weekend, otherwise I'll review it at FAC. I'd ideally like Schicchi to have a few more days at PR, as I am still pondering a few aspects, but generally it's looking in good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the well-deserved star for Evelyn Waugh. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Waugh's! (couldn't resist it) Thanks for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
My congratulations too! Do you want me to raise the question of the fair use image of the older Waugh on the talk page (or do you)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that the image has been deleted; is there way of recovering it, if a consensus felt that non-free use of this image was justified? Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I could un-delete it as an admin for fair use in an article, if there was consensus to use it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
All right, I will contact Jappalang and some of the others who supported EW at FAC and invite their views in a talkpage seminar. I may not do this before Christmas. Will they be anle to view the image in its deleted state? Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
They can only see the deleted image if they are an admin. This link is of the same image (though more sepia toned). Please let me know if you open this discussion and I will be glad to add my opinion. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Schicchi

Hi, Brian - All I've been doing is just working through the article as time (of which, at present, I'm rather short - Swedish crime stuff on TV, plus festive season events) permits. I should be able to get to the end sometime fairly early tomorrow (Tuesday). As of now, and leaving aside the copy-editing that I haven't finished, there are a few things that I haven't gone into much but which, off the top of my head, have struck me as possible improvements:

  • The synopsis is still rather clunky
  • There's a bit too much on the trittico itself, which could possibly be included in the Il trittico article and just summarised here
  • It would be interesting to list some non-trittico combinations of (GS + a.n.other opera), but maybe that's either OR or icing on cake.

I was also wondering a bit about the Dante quotes that appear in the Background section. "Goblin"? "Queen of the herd"? What?

Nevertheless, good work by you and Wehwalt on my favourite, or maybe my second-favourite, Puccini opera. Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I/we will work on these things Brianboulton (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's talk it over, Brian.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Final comments, this time on the Music, Arias and External links sections:

  • The blue part of ref 56 looks distinctly odd, with a string of forenames and a bracket in the middle, but I can't get at Grove Music Online.
    Yes, the title of Girardi's article is awfully unwieldly, and I didn't help by cutting some of it off. It is correct as stated now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 63 says "Newman, p. 42", but Newman doesn't appear in the list of references. A propos, I'm dubious about "this juxtaposition between the gay and the solemn". I'd rephrase it as "this juxtaposition of the humorous and the solemn" - "between" is wrong, and "gay" is, uh, old-fashioned. However, if the phrase is a direct quote from Newman, I suppose it'll have to stay, which is why I haven't amended it (yet).
    I've altered to your wording ("gay" wasn't in the quotation). I have added Newman into the sources (an oversight on my part). Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't quite understand "Davis also suggests that these three episodes are meant to be understood as heard by the other characters as singing, rather than, as is usual in opera, only heard as "sung" by the audience" and think it should be rephrased to make the meaning clearer. But maybe I'm just being thick.
    I decided the sentence was too much of a problem, especially as Schicchi himself clearly sings (as perceived by the cast) during the will dictations. He even says he is singing. So the sentence is gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Arias section: "the general recitative-arioso structure of the opera"? I personally don't think that there is any recitative within the meaning of the act in this opera (or, almost certainly, in any opera by Puccini). I can quote Grove Opera (sv "Recitative") if you don't believe me.
    The phrase comes fom Budden's Oxford Music Online article on Puccini, but on a careful re-reading it seems that he is referring specifically to Rinuccio's "Avete torto". He says "A close analysis of the structure (recitative-arioso and a three-part stornello)..." It seems I used a handy-looking phrase out of context, and I have now removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • External links: I'm dubious about linking to the pictures of the Allen production and not to any others. There are masses of production photos from elsewhere (ENO, Glyndebourne, El Paso, Israel, ROH....) here
    I agree, the link to the Woody Allen production shouldn't be there in isolation, nor I believe should the section be given over to a selection of links to performancs. I'd rather see Allen go. If there is a copy of the score online, that would be a useful online link, but so far I have only found this, the score for "O mio babbino caro".
  • OK, that's it from me. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The whole singing thing was unclear to me as well, and I struggled a bit to move it from my source to the article. It's also a bit problematical as Schicchi clearly sings during the will dictation to warn off the relatives, and he even says he's singing. I'll take it out. The ohter ones I'm not certain on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll look at the other issues and report back here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
See my notes and actions above.
Thanks for all that, and good luck with the FAC. --GuillaumeTell 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Reconfirmation diff to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

  1. MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
  2. MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 05:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Schicchi tries to impersonate a Featured Article

And so we're up.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to do a source review on Gianni Schicchi. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel up to a FA discussion, but miss - for people unfamiliar with Puccini - a year being mentioned sooner in the article, which I enjoyed, reading brought vivid memories of the music to my mind, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have acted on this excellent suggestion. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Brian - I've been looking at the Toolbox on the FAC page and see that all the alt texts (except, ironically, that for the Puccini image in the navbox!) just duplicate the captions, which they aren't supposed to do. I'll be happy to help with this if you and/or Wehwalt are busy (I did most of the alts for Leeds). Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That is a kind offer. I think the duplicate alts arise from an automatic process; neither I nor Wehwalt wrote alt text, which is not currently a FAC requirement per the criteria. If you feel you can spare time for this, obviously we'd be very pleased. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me add my thanks and appreciation. I concur re the alt text, not presently a FAC requirement.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It is actually, as it was added to the MoS and all FAs are expected to conform to the MoS. See here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What this says (emphasis added by me) is "Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added it should be succinct, or should refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text: see WP:ALT for more information." This does not quite add up to an FAC requirement to add alt text. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've added alt text to the images - feel free to edit or indeed to delete. It seems to me, as I implied above, that the appearance of "alt text" in the Toolbox listing on the FAC page indicates that alt text IS required, even if there are conflicting statements elsewhere in the great WP bureaucracy. Season's greetings! --GuillaumeTell 01:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for doing it. Very comprehensive indeed! Happy Holidays to you!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have thoughts on the image concern raised? Do we know for sure that this brightly colored poster (which I've often seen sold and is for sure in the PD, question is proving it) was published as the title page of the score? Does that for sure make it PD if so? I've looked on the web and it is a popular enough poster that you can order online but non one seems to authoritatively list the source. It's used more or less as decoration, I'm quite happy to dump it unless we can pin this down easily.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I'm convinced that the poster is PD, but I may not have the proof we need. Give me 24 hours to delve. Otherwise we'll drop it; I have a potential replacement in File:Trittico at Met1918.jpg, which the source specificlly dates to the Met Trittico of 1918. Four supports so far, and I think there are one or two more on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine. If I recall correctly, you can buy it as a T shirt at the Met's shop.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I've done an online booksearch for copies of the libretto published by Ricordi in 1918. Although there are plenty of copies, none of them show an illustration, so I can't yet confirm that this image was indeed the title page or cover. Still searching. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I did see the one on Google books, which is an ordinary libretto for the use of opera goers, without any particular illustrations. I thought it was the score, however, not the libretto.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest comments, I will be traveling today, I will get to them I hope tonight if you do not first. They do not look arduous.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with them all, except the Dante quote citation which I've left for you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will look at it tonight. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Brian, I'm off to Italy for a week and will be virtually (and blessedly) computer-less. I just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year and good luck with the FAC, although I can't see any more problems (invented or otherwise) rearing their little heads. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for all your help with this. We would have been in some difficulties without your help, and if the article does get promoted a lot of the credit will be yours. Have a wonderful trip to Italy. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    I second that. I've always wanted to spend some time in Italy but have never been there for longer than 3 or 4 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Congrats to you and Wehwalt for your hard work on this. --GuillaumeTell 01:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
My congratualtions too! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Me three. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

– and thanks to you all for the generous amount of time given to helping improve this article. A team effort, I think, so congratulation all round. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bartered Bride in Paris

Hi there. I was fiddling around trying to fix a recent edit to The Bartered Bride that suggested it appeared in Paris for the first time in 2008. I found a ref that it premiered at the Opéra-Comique in 1928 but couldn't (without going to the library) find out if this was the first Paris performance anywhere. Perhaps you already know the answer to this.

I was also puzzled that the section regarding Smetana's early efforts to gain a Paris premiere for his opera linked the name "Paris Opera" to the Opéra-Comique page. I fixed this, but wondered if perhaps it was actually the Opéra-Comique that he corresponded with. That house seems a much more likely venue for this opera in the late 19th century than the house of grand opera, the Paris Opera. I can't check the listed source to confirm unfortunately, so now I am probably wasting your time by asking the question here. I know your work to be very precise, so I am probably wrong, but thought I would ask.

All the best, with admiration for your fine work on this article, Tosca and others. Mark Markhh (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wolff (Wolff, Stéphane. Un demi-siècle d'Opéra-Comique 1900–1950. André Bonne, Paris, 1953.), this was first produced at the Opéra-Comique on 26 October 1928, with Geraldine Feraldy as Marienka, Marcel Claudel as Yénik and André Allard as Ketzal, conducted by Louis Masson in a production by George Ricou. Up to 1950 there were 33 performances at the theatre. Wolff mentions a production in Flemish on 14 October 1895 at the Theatre Royal in Antwerp, and the first performance in French in Brussels on 23 February 1907. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I should mention it was given as La fiancée vendue. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not checked the research, but this looks like good work. I've moved the relevant text into "Recent revivals" as this seems more appropriate. I have also regularised the citation formats (you should not have "citation" templates mixed with "cite" templates in the same article) and have done a bit of grammar tweaking, too. Thanks to you both. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this up. Best, Markhh (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season...

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

And Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers in the U.S.

Ahh... Thanks, Brian - this is my first time attempting the peer review process. I made an article that I decided should be split - so I asked for peer review of both on 12/25 (and confusion erupted when I had to change the names to lower-case). It's 12/26 now - can you help me get this article re-listed? Should it be re-listed? Simesa (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive3

I believe I've addressed all your concerns, if I have can you please strike and then support, if not, please tell me what I still need to fix. Please revisit the page. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

CT, you shouldn't specifically ask for support, just a revisit; asking for support violates WP:CANVASS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed :) CTJF83 chat 19:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Better ... Brian knows the score, but I just wanted to let you know for the future-- no problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll recheck the sources issues tomorrow. But when I am only reviewing sources and citations, I don't register supports or opposes, since I am only concerning myself with a single aspect of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah)/archive1.
Message added 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to your sourcing concerns. Admrboltz (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had a chance to look at my replies? --Admrboltz (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to your latest comments. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with peer review

Hello. About a year ago, you provided very helpful feedback in the peer review of 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final which went on to become a featured article and has even been featured on the main page already. Recently I've put a lot of work into tournament final for the following year, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, and it recently passed GA review. I've opened up a peer review for it to hopefully prepare it for an FA review in the future. I would be greatful if you wouldn't mind reading through the article once and providing any suggestions or feedback on the prose that occur to you. If you don't have time right now, I totally understand. Thank you anyways and happy hollidays! --SkotyWATC 07:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased that your 2009 article was promoted, and enjoyed seeing it as TFA a couple of months ago. I will be glad to look at the 2010 article during its peer review, though it may take me a day or two as I am a bit under the weather right now, and dosing myself with pills. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No hurry. The peer review will be up for a month, so there's pleanty of time. Thank you for your willingness to help when you get well. --SkotyWATC 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you've started making some adjustments to the prose already. Hope you're feeling better now. Thanks for your help and I look forward to following up on any feedback you have. --SkotyWATC 06:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Delius

I've added my source list to the one you have in your sandbox. Suitable overlaps - which bodes well. I'd like to stick to the biography, on the whole, as I'm not sound on the big Delius works such as the Mass of Life. I'll try to toddle down to the British Library one day next week. I absolutely cannot order anything from Abebooks or Amazon or anywhere else, for the sake of domestic harmony. ("More books?", said in an Edith Evans three-octave handbag swoop.) Tim riley (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I often have to smuggle in my book parcels furtively, or else pay large bribes to secure the aforementioned harmony. The life of the devoted scholar is indeed hard. For the time being, then, I'll concentrate on the music and leave the biographical details to you. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Brianboulton. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Round Church, Preslav

Hi and a happy new year! Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I now noticed that I haven't informed you I removed the "language=Bulgarian" parameters from the books listed under the "In Bulgarian" heading of the Sources section. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Review

Many thanks for your peer review on the William Arnold (settler) article I had expanded. You reviewed way back in late October, but my attention has been diverted to several other articles in the works, so I'm very late in finding your excellent and thoughtful comments. I hope to act on them soon, but have several other irons in the fire at present.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_35&oldid=1139370021"