Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

The Judge

Landis is at FAC. Sandy won't promote until tomorrow so the dime won't drop until then, but she said (without my asking) I could nom another. I am going to get in a week of work on the Nixon article and see how far that gets me. I don't expect to complete the renovation in that time, but hopefully can get a good part of it done. I've danced around that article long enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Carlisle United Page Review

The Reviewer's Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time to review the Carlisle United F.C. page. I appreciate your critique and will use it to improve the article. If5tatement (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

PR Kennet and Avon Canal

I presume you have seen there has been a fair amount of discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1 but I think most of the issues raised so far have been dealt with and I wondered if you had other comments. I will be away from tomorrow (Tues 21st) to next Monday (27th) at Glastonbury Festival so will not be able to deal with any queries during that time, but will get to them when I get back.— Rod talk 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy the festival! I have been very busy these last few days and haven't been watching the canal article, but I'll certainly look at it again while you're away and leave comments accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A bot has now closed the peer review. Do you have any further comments (perhaps just put them on the talk page), if not I'll think about nominating at FAC in a few days.— Rod talk 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Ferrier FAC

Apropos Nikkimaria's query over page numbering for the Humphrey Burton/Sunday Times ref, I have discovered how to link without password to the Newsbank source: this should work Tim riley (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will alter the ref to link to this online version. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I see that J Milburn has reviewed the images and there is an overwhelming number of support. I think I can contribute no further to the FAC (and I have only gone through the first 2 sections several days past). Sorry. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Messiah

Hi Brian, thanks for working on Messiah - something I have actually sung (parts of). As far as I know, it is OK to link directly to Wikisource - you can do it with [[wikisource:]] or [[s:]] and pipe it, so ''[[s:Messiah|Messiah]]'' would give Messiah with a link to the Wikisource page. I have linked directly to Wiktionary in FAs that passed FAC with the links in, so it should be OK. I also do not know of any restrictions on linking to pages with cleanup banners. Especially since it is not questioning the accuracy of the material presented, just the formatting I think it is fine.

Unfortunately the sound recordings appear to be under a non-commercial license - the old web page is not working but I found them at this MIT web page here which specifies the non-commercial license. The concert page itself is here. The license page says to contact them for other uses, so they may be willing toi freely license some sound files.

But wait - the files on Wikisource also have a link to Internet Archives - it appears they were originally published under a CC license that worked for Wikipedia and Wikisource! See here. My understanding is that if they were released freely, a more restrictive license cannot be imposed later. So I think these are OK, but to be sure I would ask Jappalang. So as far as I can tell, these are free sound files, but it appears that MIT has added a more restrictive license later (and moved their copies to a new URL). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer. I have now seen that all of the Messiah soundfiles are listed here, which is where I normally pick up my music samples – and all uploaded by Raul who knows a thing or two. So it all looks very promising. I'm still unsure whether the Wikisource link is the best way to present this material within our article, but it does seem that we have choices. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One for the birds

Well, I see Ferrier is doing quite well, unlike the lady herself at the end (as Bugs Bunny once said, "What did you expect in an opera, a happy ending?") Anxiously waiting to see what you do with Messiah, the sort of article I could never hope to do justice to. But if you need a break from the world's first and longest Christmas carol (or so it seems!), Indian Head eagle is at PR. I've really been concentrating on images recently and I think this one shows it (which doesn't mean the text is bad!).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

With the promotion of Landis, I've moved it ahead to FAC. I hope you can give it a review in due course. There is no particular hurry. I'm fully occupied with research on the sage of Saddle River.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well done on the Judge. Ferrier went through, too. As for Indian Head eagle, I have started assembling comments in the usual place and will complete my review in a day or so. I am much exercised at the moment in trying to synthesise an account of the music of Messiah into an essay of 1,000 words or so. Hard work. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Congrats on Ferrier. Yes, Nixon will be a struggle given that I have to cut it by about a third to have a reasonable chance at FAC. I do not have time to look at your comments early, alas, between research and doing a review for Tim. There is no hurry, I will be spending days organizing the fruits of what I am scanning.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Misc

I hope your busy weekend was, as Wodehouse has it, "pleasant and instructive".

  • Messiah: I've kept an eye open as you bade me, and have been tinkering mildly te absente.
  • If you can find time and strength, I have Bernard Levin at peer review.
  • I have been pondering on the mysterious disappearance of User:Jonyungk, who has made no contributions since October last year after his earlier assiduity, and this with no presage or explanation. (I do hope he's all right in real life.) I took the liberty of peering into his sandboxes today, and there is some top-notch stuff in them. I am wondering whether it would generally be regarded as good form to plunder this valuable resource. What think you? Tim riley (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be technically legit, as there is no "ownership" even on talk page, but considering the human factors, you'd be wide to drop a note on his talk page and send him an email. You might also want to drop a note at the talk desk. If he does not return or acknowledge, then do what you need to to improve the project, though certainly give him credit at every turn and make him a conom if you advance his articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Wise words – thank you. I shall wait a bit and then follow your advice to the letter. Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I echo Wehwalt's advice. For myself, I shall be delighted if, after I have shuffled away to my post-WP limbo, someone rifles my sandboxes for whatever they can find there - which I suspect will be slender gleanings. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want me to do a history merge to preserve the edit history, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Mahler's Eight Symphony translation project

As a comeback this Summer I planned to work on several projects. The first and most urgent is Mahler's Eight. I've advanced quite well, but as translator I must check references. As I only have access to website links I've made a comment on the discussion in the talk page. I have no hurries but just let you know and have this matter assesed only by you when possible. Thanks and greetings as always for you phenomenal job. OboeCrack (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done the work: your article is translated and I'll change the two links that are wrong per you nihil obstat. OboeCrack (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Thanks for your comment, I was reformatting citations. Banner now removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mount Cleveland, Alaska

It's a little late I suppose, but I finally went back over your comments from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Cleveland (Alaska)/archive1, can you just check back and make sure all of your comments were addressed? Thanks. I intend to retry once I'm back from my two weeks of vacation.

In regards to the Myers source reliability, I messaged AVO and they said:

If you use the reference as it stands-- unpublished data, and are quoting the manuscript correctly, then there from our perspective that is perfectly fine. As an organization we aren't claiming to have vetted anything, but are providing research material for your use. Having said that, we do try to put what we feel is good reference material on our site.

Since Google Books now has a copy of Baker 1906 on their site (did they have it back then, too? Did I check? I don't know, but it's there now haha), I went and cited the "native naming" material through it instead. ResMar 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me over this. I've looked back at my FAC sources comments. I can't really add anytning on Peaklist; if other editors are happy with this then I won't pursue it. On Myers, I think it highly unlikely that an unpublished and unvetted paper will meet the FAC criterion for reliability, but I am seeking the opinion of another editor well versed in such issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As for Peakslist I removed it from the article; the only that it cited was the prominence, and since Mount Cleveland is surrounded on every side by water, that falls under common sense, anyway. ResMar 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Noted. On the Myers source I consulted Ealdgyth, who commented "I'm unconvinced, honestly. I'd rather see something that was at least vetted somehow, although the information isn't exactly earth-shattering either." So you might defend it on the grounds that it only supports routine information, or find a different, unquestionable source, or you could withdraw the info and the source as being insufficiently important to warrant further enrgies. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

They will be setting lots of fireworks off around here - all in honour of your birthday, right? Hope you have a good day! Thanks for all you do, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is so, I join in the praise and congratulations, Hallelujah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's my birthday; I'm a real life nephew of my Uncle Sam, though born in England of English parents, so I can never be president. Thanks to you both for your good wishes; I'm having a great day. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011


  • I see that you, Wehwalt and I all have FA gongs in this issue. Loud applause in all directions. I am concerned, however, to see that we are in the same batch as the False Potto. I have been brought up to mingle only with scrupulously True Pottos. Be that as it may, ought I to be doing anything Messiah-ish? Tim riley (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    I left a couple of messages on your talk, referring you to the Messiah workpage where there are matters requiring your attention, mainly (a) copyediting my "music" text, (b) providing a source for the Hallelujah manuscript, and (c) a couple of issues about recordings citations. I didn't edit yestrday (my birthday), but I will be working on the page tonight. It is beginning to look almost PR-worthy and I hope we can get it there by this weekend. Gerda is working on a subarticle and there will be a need to harmonise. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    Good grief! I completely missed your earlier messages – so sorry! Will attend to them this very day. Meanwhile, a strange line of text has appeared at the bottom of your Ferrier article, reading "Top icon cannot be used outside of the User, Template, or User talk namespaces. Try Spoken Wikipedia or Featured article instead." Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Congratulations on the promotion of Kathleen Ferrier to featured status! Though no longer a household name, she is certainly quite important in the history of vocal performance, and she deserves a quality article. Thank you for working on this, and for all your (many!) contributions to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Helferich Clarke FAR

Hi Brian - Nikki has responded to your comments of a few weeks ago at the FAR for Rebecca Helferich Clarke. This article has been at FAR for a long time, so it would be great to get any final/further comments that you have so we can wrap up the review. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted my final comments at the FAR page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A cricketing favour...

I don't know how you are for time at the moment, but if you have a chance could you briefly cast your eye over Abe Waddington? It had a rather cursory PR and I'm not sure it is worth putting up at FAC: I have my doubts it is interesting enough (not that this ever stops people!) or detailed enough. I would appreciate your opinion and any comments, however brief, would be gratefully received. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly look at Waddington, though it may take me a few days; I'm pretty tied up at the moment, and I shall be off wiki on Sunday and most of Monday. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark peer review

Hi. Thanks very, very much for going over that article and offering your feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead section of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark article. What do you think of the lead now?
I removed the Cantonese and Mandarin pronunciation transcriptions for the names of Wong Kim Ark and his four sons — leaving the Taishanese pronunciations (their native dialect). I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, and so far the discussion there isn't definitive as to whether even the Taishanese pronunciations should be kept (i.e., maybe keep only the Chinese characters with no pronunciation info). Your thoughts?
I'm still scratching my head regarding the image placement. I would like to figure out a way to keep them all if possible, but I see your point that there may simply be too many of them. Regarding squeezing of text between the first few images and the infobox, do you feel this would still be a valid objection even if only the first image (the photo of young Wong Kim Ark) were kept? What if I were to move the images (with the possible exception of the first photo of Wong) into a gallery section at the end of the article?
There are other things to do, in addition to the above, but I'd especially appreciate any further feedback on these points. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PR

If you have a spare moment while preparing for the Messiah, could you take a peek at the PR of Canoe River train crash? I've also asked TCO, but he is likely to take a different tack than you will. As I mentioned to you, this article features our favourite German footballer.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to FAC before I could get to it, but I'll try and read it there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, I've written another short coin article, Turban Head eagle, but am now returning to the Nixon project.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Messiah PR

Yes. I'd be happy to. Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I will also be glad to - thanks so much for everyone's work on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it open yet? Happy to do so. Bound to be an epic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Going to link subarticle structure as Main, now on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen

Judging by the fact you've sent Messiah to PR, I assume you can't be far away from starting work on Amundsen's article. I'm essentially ready; I've had more trouble than I expected accessing some biographies, but I can overcome that barrier in the next couple of weeks. Books I've looked at in detail are Huntford's Last Place on Earth, Solomon's The Coldest March, Fiennes' Captain Scott and Amundsen's South Pole. I agree with you that Amundsen's book will probably form the base of the article, but I think despite its flaws—particularly its treatment of Scott's expedition—the story in Huntford's book of Amundsen's expedition is solid enough to make it a very useful text for this article. Solomon's book is good for some scientific aspects, particularly the choice of the Bay of Whales and temperatures. Fienne's book is just disappointing, a sad tirade against Huntford, and is probably completely useless. I'm just flicking through a book on the race published by the American Museum of Natural History to accompany an expedition they had last year, which could be very good for establishing the expedition's place in history. My current work is still geared towards the AAE; I now have a rough draft of Far Eastern Party, which I'll hammer into shape over the next week and hope to get to FAC in a couple of weeks. Apterygial talk 00:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Although I shall be busy steering Messiah through its PR and FAC stages in the next few weeks, my main writing tasks on the article are done, and I am moving on to the start of my next project which is Amundsen's expedition. Huntford's Last Place on Earth as a source has to be used with care; there is another Huntford book, his biography of Nansen, that has some useful details relating to Amundsn's machinations before the expedition. I agree that Feinnes's Scott book isn't worth much; there is a better and more balanced Scott biography by David Crane that may produce useful stuff. I have a couple of other books: Scott and Amundsen: Duel in the Ice by Rainer-K Langner (tr. Timothy Beech, 2007), and The Conquest of the South Pole by Julie Karner (2006) which I have yet to investigate. Amundsen's own book, while essential, is of course a primary source and has to be used as such. My shelves have numerous other related books, and there is useful online material too, so we should not be short of source material.
In my view the existing article needs to be completely rewritten. I don't think there is any need to stick to the present sections or subheadings. The main areas of the article will be Background; Preparations; Expedition; Aftermath - with as many subsections as suggest themselves during the writing. The first thing to be decided is what areas we respectively concentrate on. I am entirely flexible here; you say what you want to do and I'll fall into line. I suggest that future discussions, comments, suggestions etc are carried out on the workpage, here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be away hiking until the 17th, but I'll get back in touch after that. Apterygial talk 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark peer review (again)

Hi. I've done some work on the article in line with the suggestions you offered in the peer review. In addition to expanding the lede section and removing the (arguably irrelevant) Cantonese and Mandarin pronunciations of the Chinese names of Wong and his sons, I moved the document images to a gallery section near the end of the article. I also moved some of the cites to the ends of their respective paragraphs. I still need to work on the "in some cases statements lack citations" issue, and I'm searching for my old notes (photocopies of material I saw at the National Archives in 2005) in order to tidy up the mega-footnote about Wong's possible year of birth. I believe all the retrieval dates are in American (month-day-year) form now, but the difference between "Retrieved" and "retrieved" appears to be embedded in the different citation templates, so this will require more careful work. Any further comments would, of course, be more than welcome. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_42&oldid=1141614737"