Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

Wonder World Tour

Your comments were answered back. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The last comment was resolved. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind crossing out the last comment if you think it is completely resolved? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Link, please Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Flowing Hair dollar

Hi Brian. I'm the author of the article, and I wanted to thank you and let you know that I addressed most of your concerns at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. I did have a couple of questions though. The most important is, do you think I should remove the website address from the website which hosts the section of the Coinage Act that is linked to? I know another editor suggested it, but I didn't want to remove it before because I thought it wrong to not show where it came from (not originally, but where I found it). If you think I should change the website address to "United States Congress", then I will do that. Sorry for my confusion on the subject, this is a very tricky one! Either way, I will trust your judgement because you know a lot more about that than me. Thanks again for the suggestions and for your patience!-RHM22 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd keep the link but remove the web name. Give "United States Congress" as the publisher, if that is the case; in the UK, bills and acts of parliament are published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and there may be an equivalent state publishing body in the USA. Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! That does make sense. As for the ISBN, what did you mean? Did you mean the hyphens within the numbers? I looked at the ISBN for Yeoman, and it only had one hyphen so I added that.-RHM22 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, nevermind! I forgot about the Bowers book. You have a much keener eye than I do!-RHM22 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's correct. Congress rarely does its own publishing; the Government Printing Office is the US equivalent of HMSO. However, the text has the look of the 19th century. I would suggest googling a few distinctive words from a clause of the Coinage Act, and see what comes up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but I wouldn't know for sure who published it because a lot of different publishers used to collect legislation and publish them in bound volumes. Now the GPO handles all or most of that, but I guess there was more civic interest back then.-RHM22 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it was more the case of a government feeling that even the private sector cold do things. Use google books, with luck you'll find something full text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a new ref, this time using the Library of Congress for the original text. It shows which book was used also, so there's no question about publisher.-RHM22 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Guys Called Tom

I shall look in at the Lord Bradwell's page forthwith. I'll keep the Bad Baronet's PR open for a while; Wehwalt has kindly put it on his list. My next PR may well be a complete change of gear, viz. the great and good Elizabeth David, but that's a little while away. Meanwhile I'll clock in at the Driberg FAC. Tim riley (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice to know you're cooking up something good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Le plat est arrivé, ici, if you can spare un quart d'heure at some point. No rush of any kind whatever. I don't advise reading the article before lunch, lest you find yourself (as I have) raiding the fridge like a ravening beast.
I am working on it but it is a long article and I am not up to World War I and am out of time for tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Thank you for the peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands

Thank you for the peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands. They are very helpful and I'll try to integrate that feedback into the article structure at some point in the future. At the moment, I'm in the middle of trying to get ready for a two week to month long trip so this may take a while but I will get to it.

Totally understand the issue of pictures. I've made a good faith effort to get them: I've contacted people who had uploaded images to Flickr with incorrect licenses asking them to change them. I've called a Cook Islands newspaper asking for pictures. (They pointed me to the CINA.) I've called the Cook Islands Netball Association, who said they would e-mail me pictures but so far have not. The phone call was after another e-mail and I followed up with the e-mail. I'm hoping (but doubtful) that when I go to New Zealand they may have pictures in the public domain that could possibly be used. If not, I'll try to use generic shots that I can find.

The original GA for article suggested merging two sections, which is why the article probably feels like a bit of a hodgepodge. I can probably look at the edit structure and fix that. And easy enough to add contextual information about the Cook Islands to give a better picture of the situation.

The overciting issue I can understand. Some of it was because I didn't want to lose citations as information changed. Beyond that, there were alleged citation problems with information when another article I had going through the GA process during the same time period and it just fostered the idea that best practice was to cite every sentence or every reference I had available to support a claim, no matter how uncontroversial.

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback. It feels very on point and hopefully I (and anyone else who wants to contribute) can work through it to make the article better. :) --LauraHale (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very positive attitude to have. I'd like to know what transpires with this article when you have had time to address these issues. Meanwhile, enjoy your trip. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nixon

Thanks for the message, Brian. I'm off to London this afternoon but will be back on Saturday. I saw the ENO production and the HD relay from the Met so am reasonably clued up on it. Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Headley PR

Hi Brian, I've finally finished replying to your review. I don't have answers to all your questions, but I've done what I could. You said you wanted to look at the whole thing when I was done, so just letting you know. Thanks for the review! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try and look within the next 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have the time (and aren't too fed up of him yet!), Headley is now at FAC and comments would, as ever, be appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk)

20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly check it out within the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've put in some images; I'd appreciate if you could check I've done the fair use one of Headley properly as you know more about these things than I do! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The fair use rationale looks OK to me. I suggest you ping Jappalang, as the images reviewer, and ask him to OK this and the other images you have added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just saw that Tom Driberg was promoted to FA - congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I desire to associate myself with that expression of satisfaction. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Act 2 of The Mikado, I'm guessing. Congrats from here as well!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks to you all. I really should break away from slimeballs, now - though I am finding much to ponder in my current Percy Grainger researches. It follows me wherever I go. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the Tom Driberg article history link to the PR. Finally figured out how to fixx that template, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. Brianboulton (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandell Creighton

I realise that you need more reviewing work like you need an aperture in the cranial cavity, but as the man who gave us Cosmo Lang you may perhaps enjoy taking a shufti at the article on the Rt. Rev., which is the work of an editor I have not run across before. I have just spent a delightful hour or so reviewing it, and if you can find the time I think you'd find it worth looking at too. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler used to be a regular patroller of the FAC page, and used to get into extended, hilarious dogfights with Ottava Rima before the latter self-destructed, never to be seen here again. I used to wonder at the time if they were actually one and the same person and that their duels were solely for our entertainment. My grudge against Fowler is that in all the time he was reviewing at FAC, he never once commented on, let alone supported, any of my FACs (not even Lang), in spite of their brilliance. What a rotter. But I won't hold that against him; I'll make a point of looking at his clergyman piece as soon as I can find a bit of time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Air-tractor sledge

Hello. I noticed you've done some work on articles related to polar exploration (to say the least!), and I was wondering if you could lend me some of that expertise. If you have time, I'd really value any input you could offer to the PR of air-tractor sledge, here. Thanks, Apterygial talk 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. I haven't worked much on polar articles in the last couple of years. Oddly enough, the last Antarctic article I did any serious research on was Mawson's 1911-12 expedition, and I read about the air-tractor sledge then. I didn't go on to work on the article, though (Mawson's book is a painful read). So I will look at your article with some interest, and let you have some comments. It may take a few days though. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you've got the idea for a Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration featured topic on your userpage though; I'm planning on working on the AAE article this year (the 100th anniversary), so that may get you closer regardless. Mawson is deified in Australia, and I learned about his epic (yet tragic) journey in primary school. Thanks, Apterygial talk 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if the Heroic Age topic project is to be completed, it will be by other hands, but I certainly would be happy to assist you in getting the Australasian Antarctic Expedition up to featured level, if you were to decide on this as a project. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer; I don't really write unless it's to get to FA. I'm finding research difficult; The Home of the Blizzard aside there's no definitive account of the expedition. Apterygial talk 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Home of the Blizzard is essential , but really hard work; Mawson was a hero, but he was no writer! There is a relatively recent biography of Mawson by Beau Riffenburgh (I have a copy somewhere). Also, the biography of Frank Wild by Leif Mills has a long section dealing with Wild's part in the AAE. I have this, too, though that book is pretty hard to come by, even the 2007 reprint which I have. There is useful material on the Shackleton-Mawson relationship in Huntford's biography of Shackleton, and more information can be picked up from other polar histories. This page from the SPRI website give some interesting pointers relevant to the AAE, and there may well be other online material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Home of the Blizzard also presents a rather idealised picture of the expedition, and for that I also have Davis' With the Aurora in the Antarctic, 1911–1914. Riffenburgh's biography I have (and is excellent, but really only for the Cape Denison component). I have access to Philip Ayres' 1999 biography, which is reasonably good for the expedition, and just today got Mawson's Will by Lennard Bickel (which I believe was published in Britain and Australia as This Accursed Land—I have the American edition). The local branch of the RGS has Mills' book, which I should be able to access. I have alumnus membership of the University of Adelaide's library, which as you can imagine is very useful for Mawson and other Antarctic study. As for internet sources, that SPRI page looks interesting, and there's also a fairly comprehensive source of information at the Australian Antarctic Division. Apterygial talk 11:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Better Than Today peer review

Hello. If you have spare time, could you peer review a good article aiming for featured article status? It is about the song "Better Than Today". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll try. But there is a backlog on peer review, coupled with a shortage of reviewers, so it make take a week or more - unless more hands arrrive at PR to man the pumps there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I answered your comments. Please review. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On another note...

I took a look at your sandboxes. If you want, I can design yours like mine. It makes a lot of tasks easier. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind of you to offer your services. I am a simple soul who is easily confused by change, so let me mull it over for a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Hyde bus station peer review

Thank you for reviewing Hyde bus station. I'll look through your comments and address what I can. RcsprinterSee what I've doneGimme a message 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Beecham FAC

The bad baronet is now at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in my sights. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

L'Orfeo/italicization

Brian, just saw your edit to L'Orfeo. I don't know if you are aware of recent discussions about this, but I've been trying to raise this issue, see here and here. Regards. --Kleinzach 01:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the discussion after I made the L'Orfeo edit, and after I'd seen yours on Rinaldo. As I understand it, the Opera Project is backing down on the non-italicisation of opera names. I have no strong feelings about this, provided there is consistency throughout. I never really understood the arguments against italicisation, apart from the mild aesthetic one. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the typographical issue, there is also the question of what should, or should not, be italicised. For the scientists, using Latin for taxonomy, it's an easy matter, but for the music projects it's more complicated. We've never really made thoroughgoing rules about when to use italics. Individual editors have usually followed their own preferences. (It seems some people now want all 'foreign' words in italics.) BTW if you were wondering how many of the opera titles were changed — as I was — it was done in Template:Composer navbox. --Kleinzach 09:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did wonder about that. They even got to Nixon in China, my current project. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review question

Hi Brian, and thank you very much for your peer review of American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. One of your comments confused me a little. You said "Sheep and goats: "The sheep were in danger of being eradicated by a nature conservancy working to save indigenous vegetation". The nature of the danger is not clear from this." As far as my understanding goes, to "eradicate" something is to completely kill it off from a certain area. Because of this, I'm not sure why the nature of the danger is not clear - they were in danger of being eradicated (killed off) by the volunteers, who didn't like the fact that the non-indigenous sheep were eating the indigenous vegetation. Could you please clarify? Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana. It wasn't clear to me why a nature conservancy project, working to preserve indigenous vegetation, would lead to the eradication of a breed of sheep. As I now understand it from the above, the sheep were using the said vegetation as food, and the conservancy workers were intending to bump off the sheep to prevent them from doing this. If that is correct, I think your text could be extended to reflect the situation a little more specifically. E.g. "The sheep were in danger of being killed off by members of a nature conservancy project working to save indigenous vegetation which the sheep were using as food". Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think I have finished with all of your comments at the PR. My only other question was: Despite intensive searching, I can't seem to find much about the organization itself. I was able to add a bit about member numbers, staff and the board of directors, but couldn't find anything about their office complex, buildings or financials. Will the lack of this information hurt the article at FAC? It's the first time I've taken an organization article through FAC, so I'm not exactly sure what should be included and what's TMI :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Pity we can't indicate the size of the organization by reference to its annual income, but if this information isn't in the public domain, there is not much we can do. I assume that this is an independent body; if so the word "independent" should appear somewhere in the description. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Amor Prohibido (song)

I have tried to fix the issues that were conflicting to the article. May you please tell me if there are anymore issues that I may address, thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Antarctic articles

Thanks for the PR. I'm currently focusing on the AAE, but Amundsen's South Pole expedition needs some serious work (and shouldn't be too hard to find sources). It would also make a great TFA for 14 December this year. Apterygial talk 04:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I would certainly like to see the Amundsen expedition article brought up to standard. A glance at the edit history indicates that no single editor has made as many as 10 edits, with many hands fiddling with it here and there. It needs a concerted effort over many weeks. I have a large number of sources relevant to this expedition including lots of pics, and I'm tempted to put the article on my list as a project for this summer. I might be even more tempted if this could be a joint project. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd be open to that, but I certainly wouldn't be ready until the summer. Would Huntford's The Last Place On Earth be a good first book to read? Apterygial talk 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, not from the viewpoint of fairness and neutrality. It's a great read, but Huntford's main concern is to denigrate Scott, not to present the two expeditions objectively. Over the next week or two I'll try and make a rough list of the most important texts. Obviously, Amundsen's own The South Pole would be an important source. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The University of Adelaide's library is well stocked with Antarctic books and I shouldn't have too much trouble getting any you suggest. I've heard that Huntford is no fan of Scott, but he seems to be a decent writer. Apterygial talk 11:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How sure are you Shackleton's plane didn't fly due to missing parts? I got the Fisher book from the library (the one you used for Shackleton–Rowett Expedition) and it does say that, but both Burke and another book I got today on polar aviation suggest a change in plans (whatever that means) meant the plane wasn't shipped at all. I'm sceptical of the "missing parts" explanation because I've run into a few books that say Mawson's plane didn't fly because the wings were accidentally left in Australia, perhaps because it sounds like a better story (but makes Mawson look a fool). Apterygial talk 06:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much time for this, but apart from Fisher, Wild's own expedition account gives details of how the plane was stowed aboard Quest. Wild also says that the plane or parts of it, together with other expedition supplies, were "sent on to Cape Town" (he doesn't say where from), and since an alteration in the expedition schedule meant that Quest didn't call at Cape Town, these supplies and plane parts were not picked up. Mills in his life of Wild says "Certain parts for the plane were, however, sent on the Cape Town..." These accounts roughly correspond. How much if any of the plane reached Antarctica is not clear; what is certain is that it never flew there. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think the bit about Wilkins' flight is worth keeping in the article, but I'll think about whether Shackleton's abortive attempt should stay, given the ambiguity. I was planning on nominating the article at FAC soon, but I'll be away for almost a week next Thursday so I'll probably wait until after that. Thanks for the help, Apterygial talk 11:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Romances review

Hello Brianboulton! I would like you to have another look at Romances. From the review until now, here is what I've done:

  • For the background, I've information when he wanted to do a third one and announcement of the album. I also merged info from composition into the background as suggested.
  • For recording and production, not that much information found here but I did include when and where the recording place and information about the producer.
  • The article is currently going under a copy-edit.
  • I've added a legacy section since the artist had a three-disc compilation containing all tracks of the three albums and made a fourth one.
  • I'm not sure what to do with the review from Los Angeles Times. The article I link to is for the response, not the original review which I could not find in the site. Should I keep it or remove?
  • The names for personnel are automatically sorted into three columns.
  • Any other suggestions or tips before I nominate this GA? Magiciandude (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time for a thorough recheck, but it's clear that a lot of effort has gone into the article since I reviewed it, and it looks a lot stronger now. I note that it is currently being copyedited; I hope that the copyeditor will pick up on "The two albums even became successful in countries outside of Latin America..." which I remember picking on in my review. Good luck with the GA nom. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, before it was "The two albums even became a hit in countries outside of Latin American such as Finland and Saudi Arabia." now it is that sentence. He's done copy-editing for the article. Magiciandude (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
He's corrected the "American" typo, but left "even" and "of". If you're satisfied with that, well OK. it's up o your GA reviewer. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well alright, thank you for taking your time. Magiciandude (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Percy, Percy

The name Percy tends to bring to me the image of Lord Percy in Blackadder, and amazingly (to me), that character looks similar to Grainger... (heh). Commons have regarded the Bains Archive as a "free" collection, and project-wise, little objection would be faced in using that photograph. I do note your concern, as I have encountered a copyright violation in one of Bains' photographs (a picture of Emile Verhaeren, which was taken after 1923 by a known author but not reflected in the Bains archive database on the LoC). If you prefer, there are these PD-1923 photographs (which has his signature as a bonus) by Aime Dupont Studio. On my own front, I am facing a project deadline (career), and am prepping to write another big (in size) article for Wikipedia (of a genre I have yet to touch on), so my time here is spent in bursts. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • This could serve as a lede image; it looks left.
    This could serve as a lede image; it looks left.
Many thanks for taking time over this, it is much appreciated. I always look forward to your articles, so I'll look out for your next opus maximus. And I hope your career project goes well, too. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In 1901 (this is uploaded to Wikipedia)
    In 1901 (this is uploaded to Wikipedia)
  • In 1907
    In 1907
  • This is uploaded to Wikipedia; I recommend this one over the 1907 Elliot & Fry photo on the left. I suspect the photograph could be this one...
    This is uploaded to Wikipedia; I recommend this one over the 1907 Elliot & Fry photo on the left. I suspect the photograph could be this one...
  • Big version of Dupont's 1915
    Big version of Dupont's 1915
  • B/w version
    B/w version
  • 2nd Class Musician (army rank, not criticism)
    2nd Class Musician (army rank, not criticism)
  • Raising money for the Red Cross before he sets off to the trenches
    Raising money for the Red Cross before he sets off to the trenches
  • In 1920, taken by his friend Frederick Morse (this is uploaded to Wikipedia)
    In 1920, taken by his friend Frederick Morse (this is uploaded to Wikipedia)
  • In 1922
    In 1922

I also found his "The Gum-Sucker's March" (1916) with scores. Do you want those? Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Superb new pics, especially the 1922 portrait and the piano job (he didn't go anywhere near the trenches, by the way). I don't think we need the Gum-suckers as I have several old front covers I can scan, but much thanks for your efforts, well beyond the call of duty. Now all I have to do is write the wretched article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. It seems he was dabbling in amateur photography, from what I see in this very brief journal article by Brian Allison, the Curator of the Percy Grainger Museum. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that the photographs with the Allison article are still copyrighted? Otherwise, the 1920 shot of Percy and his mum would be a good one to use. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without publishing dates, we would have to consider them unpublished and they tend to fall within the 70-yr-pma for their authors since they generally bite it during the mid-1900s of later (worse would be those unpublished photographs by "unknowns", which would be copyrighted in the US for 120 years after creation). Another problem with the Rose-Percy photographs is that Percy published them (likely with Morse's permission based on their close friendship) in the US in 1923, automatically giving them 95 years of copyright protection (expiry on 2019) unless they have been previously published elsewhere. Sorry, I think the book is not considered "publication" (the book is circulated only among a small group—"for her kin and friends"[1]—thus not wide enough to consider published). Still need a publication date to determine if they are in the public domain though. Reading the Wikipedia article and Allison's report, it seems Grainger's first fiancee is sort of overlooked in the article here. She paid a handsome sum for a portrait of herself to give to him, but yet he married another woman? What is the story behind that...? His bedroom doings seem to be of interest to people as well... Looking forward to the completed article here to see what you are going to write for this interesting chap. Jappalang (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, all—or at any rate, more—will be revealed in the expanded article. Margot Harrison, who paid for the expensive portrait, was by no means his first serious love; that was Karen Holten, from 1904–12. Percy didn't marry until 1928 when he was 46, but indulged in some strange sexual pleasures meantime, and evidently after. But I'm not expecting to provide illustrations for those activities. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if you are aware of this, but Facing Percy Grainger is available here. Jappalang (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have it. It's a superb resource as a text, but I imagine that all the images are copyrighted to the Museum and can't be used. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The Museum is unlikely in any position to claim copyright over the photographs. The images are mostly taken by Meyer, Morse and other contemporary photographers (who would be the copyright owners). Photographs taken by Grainger might be another matter if his heirs have entrusted the Museum to handle the estate (but I think the Museum is an independent endeavour, no?). Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wearing a coat
    Wearing a coat
  • Mumsie...
    Mumsie...
  • At work on a pianola duo-art (dramatised enactment)
    At work on a pianola duo-art (dramatised enactment)

Found these in the LoC: Of the two photographs from the Bain Collection (in a coat, and with mummy), although I have certain reservations over the collection as expressed above, Bain has stamped a copyright notice on the photographs, leading me to believe he indeed "owned" them. It is, thus, a bit curious to see that he did not stamp another photograph of Percy-Rose that is likely by the same photographer (perhaps Bain had no intent to publish this one?). Another unstamped Bain photograph that might be of interest to you is Percy in the band. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Brian, File:Seventeen Come Sunday.ogg seems fine to me. The score was by Grainger and published in 1912. The performance was by US federal employees and recorded in the course of their duties. I refined the information on the media page, hopefully, that might further clarify things. Jappalang (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Great! I'll use it, then. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you for your review of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Egyptian temple through FAC. My own part in the review was very small. I agree that FAC reviewing can be a chore, especially (so far as I am concerned) checking source reliability on pop-culture articles. But someone has to do it. Iso actually prefer reviewing at WP:Peer review, where the atmosphere is less judgemental and a bit more relaxed. We are terribly short of reviewersany time you feel like lending a hand there, you'd be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PR

It couldn't hurt to add such a notice. I should polish off the PR for Pony shortly, and hope to get one or two more done before calling it a night (usually when the backlog is around 20 or more there are some pretty weak articles that I can review in half an hour each). Congratulations on Nixon in China making FA to you and Wehwalt - I started to read it and was going to review it, but never got time to finish it. What I read was up to both of your usual high standards. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and added it to the page in question here. Please feel free to tweak my notice (I used mostly what you wrote on my talk page). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That looks fine. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review

Hey Brian, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If you still wish to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a big backlog building at WP:Peer review, and I have some obligations at FAC, too. Plus I've never done an A-class review, before and might get my criteria a little confused. So perhaps it's best left to User:Nick-D.
Okie Dokie, no worries. :) I am putting the article through A-Class review just in case the FAC doesn't happen. Kind of a back-up plan. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A little Peace of ...

You seem to be concentrating on Waugh (and his contemporaries), me on Peace. I've gone through your comments, implemented most, made a couple of comments. Thanks or the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Reviews

I appreciate the reviews you do. If I haven't either done what you suggest at FAC or specifically queried it, it means I overlooked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous praise is always sweet. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ickenham

Thank you very much for your review. At your suggestion, I have withdrawn the GA nomination for now as there is much to be getting on with. Harrison49 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wise move. Feel free to ping me again when you've made some progress. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reorganised the article so that it follows more of a chronological order, and it has had a full copy edit. Would you mind having another look? I've made a few changes to the lead but am unsure if this is a step in the right direction or not. Harrison49 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Percy Grainger

I am just sound hunting for the most part these days while there is still low-hanging fruit to pursue some WP:FSs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well good luck to you. You are somewhat missed about the place. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review for Zoo TV Tour

Hey, a few weeks ago I nominated Zoo TV Tour as a featured article candidate. User:Nikkimaria provided an initial review of the references/sources and I responded to his concerns. We had a few rounds of responses, but I wasn't able to confirm with him that his concerns were ever closed (as he hasn't responded recently), despite contacting him on his talk page. He may just be extremely busy at this point, and understandably so. Regardless, the nomination has been open for some time and I'm concerned it will be closed soon for lack of responses or for not having his concerns with the references closed out. Would you have the time to step in and assist with reviewing the article's references? I'd appreciate anything you may be able to do. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it later today. Nikki is a she, by the way - see her userpage. She takes on a huge amount of FAC sources reviews, and may be having a brief and well-merited break. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood - her talk page looked pretty busy, so I assumed she was just getting bombarded with requests. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:FAC

Thanks for the source comments; I've implemented your suggestions and have a question (link). ceranthor 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Grainger and Grieg

I've emailed you the info you mentioned. Hope it's useful. My access to this source is, I fear, soon to cease, so put your orders in while you can! Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the warning! Shame, that. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, at a pinch I can always toddle down to the British Library, where I have a reader's ticket. It's only 20 mins walk from my flat, and JSTOR is available online there, though I'm not sure about the technicalities of downloading copies there. At all events I've laid in large stocks of scholarly JSTOR stuff on Messiah just in case. Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Pigeon photographer

Sorry to bother you, but I was encouraged to ask you if I have addressed your concerns in the pigeon photography source review satisfactorily. I hope so, but I am not entirely sure as some of the changes weren't straightforward and may have introduced new issues. If you don't have the time right now it's no problem. I am in the comfortable position of having a hard deadline that is far in the future (April Fools Day 2012). Hans Adler 19:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happened since I last looked. The bibliography has disappeared; the Further reading section, which is supposed to record uncited works of general relevance, has been unaccountably subdivided. Before I can judge whether my concerns have been properly addressed, you need to summarise what you have done, with particular reference to the points which I listed on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will tell you what I remember. I will do it here, but of course we can move it to the FAC page if that's not appropriate.
The biggest change was that I have switched the citation scheme from linked Harvard references in footnotes to the standard scheme with references directly in footnotes. The reason was that several of my references don't have authors, so IMO needed a workaround, and that workaround was not found acceptable. Obviously this change makes it hard to see what else changed, even for me, but I will do my best.
  • Hannavy 2008: I cited the editor of an encyclopedia in one place and the author of the entry in another. This is fixed.
  • Patents are now only cited in footnotes, and based on your input I have changed the citation style for them completely. See footnote 10 for examples.
  • "In the 2004 BBC program Animal Camera, Steve Leonard presented spectacular films taken by miniature television cameras attached to falcons and hawks, and transmitted to a nearby receiver by microwaves. The cameras have a weight of 28 grams (1 oz)". Except for the hawks, which were actually goshawks (corrected), I have provided the minutes and seconds where the video supports the various claims on the FAC page. Footnote 37 now has a reference to the BBC programme (not YouTube) and a link to the BBC's page about the programme. There is also a new external link to the YouTube video, as it is an official BBC Channel video (so legal). I don't like the video's original title, but I am not sure what to do about it.
  • Your last two concerns were automatically solved by the new citation scheme.
I have split the Further reading section because it seems that everything published about pigeon photography proper, with the sole exception of our article, falls neatly into one of two categories: (1) Discusses only Julius Neubronner and does not mention Adrian Michel. (2) Discusses Adrian Michel in detail and mentions Julius Neubronner briefly. It's not always clear from the title and author whether a source is of type (1) or (2), so some form of annotation per WP:Further reading#Presentation is needed. The two headings seemed to be the least obtrusive method unless/until a more general source appears, but I am open to other suggestions.
I think everything else was in response to specific requests from Nikkimaria. Hans Adler 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation, which seems fine. I will reply formally on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_39&oldid=1138909154"