Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Wrong premiere date for Rinaldo on main page summary

Hi Brian, I just noticed that the Main Page summary for Rinaldo gives 24 January 1711 as the premiere date. I've notified the error at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, but maybe you know an admin who can do this quickly for you. Best, Voceditenore 07:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, how did that happen? I didn't do the main page summary, but I should have checked. Thanks, anyway, for getting it fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but you edited it and your fingers didn't obey your brain. ;-). I only noticed it because someone had vandalised Template:Subscription required which was causing all sorts of nasty stuff to appear in several footnotes at Rinaldo (and every other article where it was used). After I fixed it, I went to check the WP:Main page and behold..... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
A fair cop, guv. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Chandra Levy pre-FAC check

Hello Brian, thank you for your advice regarding a 2nd PR following your own very helpful PR for the Chandra Levy article. When the time is convenient for you, I would welcome any additional feedback as I am interested in submitting this article for FAC. Best regards! KimChee (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the article again, and read Finetooth's recent peer review. I agree with him that the article looks like a good runner for FAC, and I look forward to seeing it there soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Messiah

Thnaks very much for planning to work on Messiah and for letting me know. Please don't feel under any pressure - I will be glad to help with peer reviews or images or image or source reviews, but am not much of an expert on music (though I do know Handel sings wonderfully, even when it is really difficult to sing right).

I understand wanting to avoid burnout - when AuntieRuth55 and I pushed hard to get Quehanna Wild Area to FA in time for April Fools Day last year, it really took a lot out of me (not to mention a better article rightly being chosen as the TFA that day). I am very busy in real life with work and some personal issues and have been operating here on reduced output mode (as my PR numbers show). I have all the research and photos done for Buttonwood Covered Bridge and have got an outline / very rough draft in a sandbox. I have much of the research done and photos for two other bridges, just need the time and focus to work on them. Hopefully soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll look out for the articles. It's as well we have Finetooth at PR, as my own input there is intermittent. I'll let you know when I start research in earnest on the Messiah article; my normal practice then is to open a sandbox page at which ideas for sources, images etc can be noted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Messiah

Honoured, and yes. Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is good news. As I say above, to Ruhrfisch, I won't be starting immediately, but when I do I'll open up a workpage for listing sources, images and useful notes. Probably around mid-May; I'll let you know. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hallelujah, concert in September, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you have a picture of Handel at the composition time (other than the belly one on top of his article), would you upload that to commons, please? He looks too young on the Denner portraits which I use now, and too old on the one mentioned above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, he was 56 when he composed Messiah; personally I don't think he looks as old as that in the top picture in his WP article, so I don't think we should be looking for anything younger-looking. I'd say the choice will be fairly wide; there's lots of time to decide about this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
For the article yes, for announcing our concert no, more than age it's belly, pomp and over-familiarity I don't like so much. (It was already in my school book.). Thanks for your reply,

On citation needed

At the SAQ FAC, you call for a citation for the sentence "The case for Oxford relies on historical inferences, literary parallels and biographical correspondences found in the works, and encrypted meanings in the works believed to disclose his authorship."

Since that sentence is a summary of the material following it, does it need a citation that specifically says that or can I use the combined cites for those points?

And the reason why the Shakespeare Oxford Society newsletter is not quoted directly is because we tried our best to stick with secondary sources (as well as the fact that we don't have access to the newsletter he quotes). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

I've taken what you said into consideration, altered due to most of them, with full responses on the peer review. I've combined the long and short names, slightly expanding the maps to make the expanded rows look slightly better. I've also added area, but feel that with both area and population included population density may be redundant. Any thoughts on something else that can be added? My only concern with some information is that often it is hard to find for some of the unrecognised states. I also haven't separated those partially in Europe from the others, as I find it hard to justify drawing line, saying in essence that Russia isn't properly European. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mothers of the Disappeared" FAC

Hi Brian; thanks for your source comments on the FAC for "Mothers of the Disappeared". I think that every point which you raised has been responded to; I hope that you are able to revisit the article and assess whether they have been done so to your satisfaction! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A330 PR

Are there any other aspects that you need me to work on for Airbus A330? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 03:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity you closed the peer review and opened at FAC before contacting me about my PR comments. I'll try and look at the FAC in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa

Hi, do you have time at all to look over this article, and tell me what needs to be fixed before I renominate it for FA? Thanks, CTJF83 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, my only involvement was with the sources review at the last FAC, and the sources issues were settled to my satisfaction then. So provided there hasn't been a major shift in the sourcing, all should still be well on that front. I take it that you will have contacted the content reviewers for their updated opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, all the opposers, cept an image one. But if your issues are addressed, I'm happy. Thanks, CTJF83 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Review request

Hi Brian - I was wondering if you might have a bit of time to look over a composer biography article that is currently at FAR/C. Rebecca Helferich Clarke (review page at WP:Featured article review/Rebecca Helferich Clarke/archive1), has been at FAR for a while, has been moved to FARC, and could use some more expert (and FA-experienced) eyes. I know that you have written a few music-related articles in the past, so thought you might be interested. If not, no big deal, but any comments at all would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk)

I'll look at the article in the next couple of days, with some interest - I have to confess that I'd never heard of her! Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I had to decline it. I've overpromised on reviews and I am a slow worker.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ping? Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I had eight days of virtual non-activity after a total telecoms failure, and I've been trying to catch up with my regular work ever since. I'll look now and try and leave some useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I did not see your post on Juliet, and yesterday was a busy day so I wasn't paying much attention. I've adopted your suggestion. Fortunately, this is the last of the R&H flops. I am considering doing Hammerstein's bio, but it may have to wait a while due to travel and other projects, including Nixon in China.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, sorry if I sounded impatient. Will respond on the FAC page later today. I am in the late stages of Tom Driberg, and expect it to be at PR within a day or two, when I shall begin work on Nixon in China. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. The only paper sources I have on NiC are the Opera News and the programme.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions appreciated!

Hi Brian, a quick question if you have time. One of the many cricket articles I've worked on is Abe Waddington. I have a source which says he married a lady called Doris Garforth, and includes a nice photograph of the reception. However, it gives no date, nor does any other source I can find. The only way to date it is to use something like ancestry.co.uk which is very much a no-no. Would it be better to mention the marriage with no date, use the dubious ancestry link, or not mention it at all? Thanks, --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to stick with what the reliable sources give you; the ancestry sources you mention are not considered reliable at FAC. There is no doubt a newspaper report somewhere, and you could use the ancestry link to ascertain a possible date which could then be the basis of a newspaper search, but it's a long shot that you will find anything. Confirming this sort of detail when there is no full biography can be difficult and frustrating.
On another matter: I have never done a cricket biography, though I have poked around in other people's. I am currently considering whether to have a go later this year at Harold Larwood, probably the one cricketer I would ever consider doing. Is he on your list - I would not like to cut across anyone else's plans or work in progress? Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
He was possibly going to be my next one, but I've others up my sleeve so I'd be happy to leave him to you. My main problem has been looking for images as I can't find any decent photos of him which are PD; they would have to be Australian, and there are few good candidates. But anyway, I don't know of anyone else likely to have a go, so feel free! Let me know if I can be of any assistance, as I have lots of favours to return. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
And if you do ever get that far, the biography of Jardine by Christopher Douglas is almost essential as it has lots of information about Larwood not in his biography. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have numerous books including the recent biography by Duncan Hamilton and several on the bodyline tour. The Jardine biography was in my father's library but I can't find it - it's not a rare book so it can easily be got. Another of my father's, Cricket with the Lid Off by Arthur Carr, has likewise gone missing and might be more difficult to replace. Anyhow, I'm unlikely to start the project befor midsummer, and I'll keep you informed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Over-referencing

I am having some troubles with an editor who in my eyes are over-referencing very innocent statements such as these:

"In Turkey[15] and Turkish controlled, Northern Cyprus[16] dolmuş (pronounced "dolmush"[17]) are share taxis that run on set routes within[17][18] and between cities.[17] Each of these cars or minibuses displays their particular route on signboards behind the windscreen.[17]"

These are all perfectly innocuous statements which have never been challenged by anyone. The editor in question (User:Fleetham) is extremely prolific and has created similar monsters in scores of articles, the references nearly always consisting of nothing more than an url between ref-brackets. I don't know if I'm crazy or the other editor is, I've tried talking to him but he always goes back to the same way of editing. I don't have a big experience with disputes on Wikipedia, maybe you have some advice for how to deal with this? Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some editors choose to use a deliberately provocative style in their articles, and resist all reasonable requests that they desist. They enjoy hassle and the mind games. Perhaps Fleethem is one of these - I have never encountered him before. I can only suggest that instead of asking him to mend his ways, you simply act boldly and replace his citation style (at least on articles which interest you) with something that better accords with WP:CITE. If he reverts you, then I think you have a case against him for destructive editing. I have never pursued such a case, but I think WP:DISPUTE is the approved route. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Driberg

I'd be glad to, though it might be a couple of days from now. I'm on a brief ramble, checking in from time-to-time from a public library with wireless access. I left my brass knuckles at home. Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready. Enjoy your ramble - it sounds disgustingly healthy! Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Very pleased to give the old reprobate the once-over. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I will await your verdict with eager trepidation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I've sent you a possible additional source or two by e-mail. Shall get to work on the article soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be glad to review it, but it will take me several days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto, I have several promises made that are urgent, so it will likely be early next week before I get down to business on Driberg.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
To all above, there's plenty of time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(out) I fixed the PR link on the talk page and see it is at FAC now - will review in a few. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I just need to reread the article to make sure some vandal hasn't accused him of—accused him of—well, I want to reread the article anyway. Unless said vandal has weighed in, I imagine I'll be overwhelmingly positive.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Blessed be the hamfisted. This will give me space to keep a couple of other promises. I'll visit the FAC anon. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gymnopilus maritimus/archive2

Hey. Just letting you know that I have renominated Gymnopilus maritimus for featured article status. Your thoughts would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Farthest South

Not sure if you have seen it or not, but an editor would like to add some Russian and Soviet accomplishments to the Farthest South - could you please weigh in on the suggestions? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it; thanks for pointing it out. I have added some comments to the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nixon in China

Do you want to set up a discussion page? By the way, the existing plot summary should be entirely scrapped, it is both POV, and possibly a BLP violation as Kissinger remains alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On your talkpage I suggested we used User:Brianboulton/Sandbox5 as a noticeboard. I agree the old plot summary has to be entirly replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. As I am back on the road next week (UK and Germany, mostly) this is a good article to be working on, no heavy tomes to lug around (I try to make it on a carry on bag).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Brian, have we satisfactorily addressed all the issues you brought up? The article has garnered three "supports" so far and the comments have dwindled down to almost nothing in the past few days. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I have struck the remaining sources issues and as far as I am concerned, all is well on that front. I have been pretty impressed by my partial reading of the article and if I can find a spare hour this weekend I intend to read it through and hopefully support its promotion. Of course, if it's promoted before I get there, that's fine, too. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I made the same point that you've just made, but didn't get any support for it and it didn't seem worth pursuing - see Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_23#Shakespeare_authorship_question.23Case_against_Shakespeare.27s_authorship. --GuillaumeTell 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I should have read other comments first, but there were so many. I think it is a worthwhile point; if there's no response, I'll stay leaning. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Brian, are the recent changes in response to your comment satisfactory? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Headley

No problem, there's no rush. As usual, I'd rather a thorough review than a fast one! And I've been having computer issues myself, so I sympathise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PR backlog

Sorry to hear about your internet issues. I will be glad to do the updates as long as you need me to. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I can keep updating the backlog as long as is needed - hope the problems soon are resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are back in harness. I neglected to update the backlog yesterday, so the March 15 article you added today should have been added by me yesterday (sorry). Accordingly I added the 3 articles for March 16th to the backlog a short time ago. Welcome back, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy half dollar

A request has been made for a copyedit at the FAC, and I know of none better. Do you think you could take a peek at it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Sir Thomas

I have put Thomas Beecham up for peer review with a view to getting him to FAC. Any contributions you feel moved to make will be esteemed a favour. No rush. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this. A drive-by editor has thought fit to close the PR after less than 2 days and has, for some inexplicable reason, nominated the article for FA. I have naturally opposed the nomination as premature (some might also say discourteous, but let it pass) and will get the PR reinstated as soon as I can. Meanwhile, sorry you are being mucked about by this other iditor. Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope your computing machine is now behaving itself. I khow how busy you are, but if you could spare time over the next few days to look in at the (mercifully restored) PR, I should be most grateful. I should like to get the old goat up to FAC before some other strange interruption anticipates me. Tim riley (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm on my way! Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New Finland, Saskatchewan

See that you made some comments in the peer review of the above article. I have fixed the points you brought forward, and transcluded the PR in the article's talk page. Thank you for taking the time to put forward the PR. Sorry I did not notice sooner. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

US 131

Sadly, I can't add grid references for the citations that lack them as the maps themselves lack them. Thank you for the review and catching that typo. Imzadi 1979 → 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_38&oldid=1086460947"