Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54

ahoy

Right, now to discuss how to proceed from here...figgered you might wanna add a word or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely respond. The contest was a great idea and I look forward to seeing it repeated. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • [I'm hoping there might be less drama here than WT:FAC]... Would I be an a**hole if I asked, what's the point of making "shoe" or "chair" an FA? I see it as a huge (almost scandalous) waste (squander, even) of scarce editing resources. FA is about quality. It's about providing quality information to the public for free (as is Wikipedia). It's about deep research and well-crafted writing. It is such a waste to put so much time into "shoe" when everyone already knows what a shoe is. I actually have a visceral response to this. Now, there are layers of that whole core thing, and if you move to the outer layers, then the value of the "target" increases. But "shoe"? No. That's just wrong... I am really trying not to revert to Ling.Nut.Dark here, but this is just... I have run out of polite adjectives. :-) – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I do have some sympathy...I can't imagine myself reading history, science or geography but other people sure do. meh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That's visits not reads. Yomanganitalk 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I also have some sympathy, but also think that (so far, although it is a limited sample), the contest has done pretty well at improving articles that are...one step down maybe?...from the ones you list above. See Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles for the list that most people were working from, and see that articles like Middle Ages, Romanticism, Amphibian and Ecosystem were in the set of winners for this edition of the contest. On the other hand, yes, everyone knows what a shoe is. However, what if people want to learn about the history of shoes? Or the potential health effects of high heels? Or about how shoes are manufactured? (Our shoe article is horrible, btw). Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That's just the point, I think the shoe article should be a shell; a dab page even! Give a def of shoe, sure maybe some photos of shoes from around the world, and lotsa nice blue links. Or screw it, make it a category. Then if people wanna know how crakows are made.. well, that's a more reasonable question. As for improving articles at the core-of-core levels, I don't think they should be improved. If anything, they should be shortened. I am not kidding... if e wanna do something worthwhile, email six SMEs in a dozen fields and ask 'em, if you think one person and one idea in your field should be fully presented to the public, what would it be? or some such. By the way, Yomangani, that "talk page invasion" edit summary made me think of poor Archibald Buttle... – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As is often the case, I'm afraid I find it difficult to understand what or who, precisely, are the targets of Ling's scattergun attacks, and being fairly thick, I don't understand half of his allusions. So I think, to adopt the old WW2 slogan, I'll just keep calm and carry on. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for using your talk page as a forum. I just didn't wanna express this on WT:FAC, where it might cause drama. But since I have confused you, I will stop. Please do accept my apologies. – Ling.Nut (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC) PS one edit shows up as 5 in the hist? That's weird... – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror

Heading to FAC shortly ... get in early on the ripping apart of the prose! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Important article, I'll get to it soon. I wonder why the Bayeux artist depicted William in a harlequin outfit? A bit lèse majesté, if you ask me. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL.. that's supposed to look like armor - scale or chainmail, I'm not sure which. Harlequin outfit (snorts). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this, or perhaps this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This is like punishment for whining about ponies and puppies, isn't it??? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Carmen

Could the Carmen article have reference to Carmen Fantasy (Sarasate). I think it should. Thanks, OboeCrack 87.216.122.149 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added a line. It would be useful if the Fantasy article had at least one source reference. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania)

I believe I've addressed all of your comments, if you wish to take another look. Thanks, Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Throwing another one your way

At some point in the next few days, I'm hoping to put Arthur Mold up at FAC. If you are not too busy or too bored by obscure cricketers, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. It is very short by my standards! But an interesting cricketer who had a mixed career, to say the least. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosima caricature

Smaller version at left (less moiré)
Original verion at right (more moiré)

I resized the image and by making it smaller to start, the Moiré pattern is much less visible at 220 pixels wide (as seen here), at least on my monitor. If you prefer, it could also be submitted to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for cleanup. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The left-hand image is fine, especially as, in the article (Cosima Wagner) it will be shown in upright, which will virtually eliminate any remaining trace of moiré. Many thanks for doing this. At some stage (not now) perhaps you would give me a brief tutorial on image tweaking so that I don't have to bother you with these trivial matters. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I would be glad to try some sort of tutorial when you want. I mostly use Paint.NET which is free software, though I also still use Microsoft Paint some. With those I can rotate, crop, adjust color schemes, do some cleanup, etc. I saw that the original large scale Cosima image had much less moire' and so tried re-scaling it and, as luck would have it, that worked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosima image review and other comments - I am reading the article, checking the images as I come to them. I will also comment on the text as needed.

  • I uploaded a new version of File:Cosima Wagner Lenbach.jpg as the former version had a watermark from Bridgeman (and was a slight crop of the painting compared to the second version uploaded).
  • I would also perhaps add in the cpation that this is a painting of her by Franz von Lenbach
  • Lead - I would add the year of her retirement to Her influence was such that this conservative approach was continued by her successors long after her retirement from the directorship.
  • File:Cropped Hans von Bulow.jpg faces right and draws the reader's eyes out of the page (instead of into the center, as the MOS wants). There is one left facing photo of him on Commons, File:Hans von Bülow.jpg, but it is not as well sourced and has some glare on the top (from a flash?), so I would rather keep this one.
  • Extra word Bülow was quickly impressed by Cosima's pianistic skills, in which he saw the stamp of her father, and the pair were developed feelings each other.
  • Wikilink St. Hedwig's Cathedral in Berlin? (I've been there - it is an interesting church, though almost completely rebuilt after the war)
  • I would also use Ludwig II (the wikilink is correct, but he is just identified as "King Ludwig of Bavaria")
  • Identify the city (assume it is Munich) Ludwig also provided Wagner with a lakeside retreat at Lake Starnberg, and a grand house in the city itself.[34]
  • Link "Munich Hofoper"? - presumably to Bavarian State Opera?
  • Stray single quote in this (after "raised"): By the spring of 1873 only a third of the required funds had been raised' further pleas to Ludwig were initially ignored, but early in 1874, with the entire project on the verge of collapse, the king relented and provided a loan.[64]
  • I have read to the end of the "First festival" section - why did Bülow no longer conduct Wagner? Was it the divorce?

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I have transferred them to the article's peer review page so that all comments are kept together. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SOrry I missed the PR page, I willl finish my comments there within the day. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Again

Are you free now? The level of inactivity at the peer review of Ra.One forced it shut down, and I'm rather non-inclined to opening up another one, so could you do the peer review at my/the article's talk page? Pretty please? I'm targeting a June 10 or June 14 deadline for re-submission for a third (and hopefully final) FAC. Your help is needed - badly. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll give an hour to it later today. It won't be a full review, but hopefully will give you some pointers for improvement before the FAC. I will post on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Progress in the review. Could you comment? Thanks. Btw, you said "not a complete review". Could you complete your review tomorrow? I'd be much obliged. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that is it. I can't give any more time to this article, which is well beyond my areas of expertise or interest. You are welcome to my comments, but no more feedback or discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That's alright, I understand. Would you at least discuss the issues you have pointed out in your reviews? :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive 53: Revision history

I think you made a genuine error here: Archive 53: Revision history --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. How to fix it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Dunno. It seems to have gone anyway but even with my tools I can't find what happened to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Proper closure of Folding@home peer review

Hi, here you reverted my closure of Folding@home's peer review, and then closed it properly. I thought I was following the closure procedures described on Wikipedia:Peer review. What did I do wrong? Jesse V. (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Within the peer review, the text {{Peer review page|topic=engtech}} needed to be replaced with {{subst:PR/archive}}. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops, yeah I thought I did that. My bad. Thanks for fixing! Jesse V. (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Dostoyevsky peer review

hello,

I invite you to join this peer review. Any help appreciated! Regards.--GoPTCN 12:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, it's a long article and my time is somewhat limited at present. I will try and make a meaningful contribution (this is an important article), but can't promise a full review. Give me a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosima wagner

Why are you writing stuff on Coisma Wagner. She is nazi, there are better people. 95.148.237.104 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are nicer people, but she was a significant figure, in Wagner's life and in the Bayreuth Festival. I don't think I've made her sound better than she was. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic work on the Cosima Wagner article - well done, this is hugely improved!--Dogbertd (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page link fix

Hi Brian, I've moved your most recent archive (archive 53) to the right place and fixed the link to it. I discovered that it was titled incorrectly while doing a search for my username in the talk namespace. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it was also discussed above. BTW, Monteverdi's Magnificat (referred to in the original conversation mentioning me) was indeed absolutely amazing! Graham87 13:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I can't think how I messed up, as this was my 53rd talkpage archive. I'm glad that you found the Magnificat rewarding; the Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610 article is pretty substandard, and I might try and find time to attend to this. Meanwhile, if you're interested, I have worked up another Monteverdi article, L'Arianna, that you may care to look at if you have a spare moment or two. I have to say that I find the much-praised "Lamento" (per soundfile) a big disappointment, particularly after the Magnificat, but there we are. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic article! But I agree; the lamento is nowhere near as good as the Magnificat; the former work seems a bit simplistic to me. Graham87 12:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Rite of Spring

I'll be very pleased indeed to work on the Rite with you. I'm biddable about division of labour, but I think my strengths would be (i)background and history, (ii) critical reaction, (ii) discography. I struggle with musical analysis: steering between the Scylla of jargon and the Charybdis of woolliness can be the Devil's own job. As to timetable, July is a bit busy for me, though not impossible. August would be ideal, if that fits your calendar.

Meanwhile I'll brace myself for an encounter with Cosima. I'd better do it now, before sunset: some things are best done in daylight. Tim riley (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the Dark Lady. On the Rite, I will map out a revised draft article structure as a basis for discussion. If you can't commit much time before August I may slip in my lurking Monteverdi piece meantime, but I will begin basic work on the Stravinsky. In that regard, my email of a couple of weeks ago indicates I didn't receive all the stuff you sent. And I gather there is more to follow? Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll abandon clever FTP attempts and send you a daily Sacre email with one JSTOR article of the dozen or so I have squirreled away.

Nixon in China

As you will see from the the talk page there, there is a new book out about the opera. It is rather pricey, but I find it is available at the library of a university near to me, so I shall plow through the sunbathing summer session kids and see if I can make a copy at fifteen cents a page or whatever they charge. If so, I will probably do some renovation over the next few weeks as time presents. I have Nickel (United States coin) which someone is looking at, at GAN and will probably be my next one up, then I will be returning to the 1890s for United States Senate elections in Ohio, 1898, which is an expansion of an aspect of Hanna's career. I've also gotten hold of quite a good biography of Foraker so I may be giving him some attention soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a good idea to update the Nixon article, if you can access the Johnson book cheaply. Some extracts from the early chapters are online, here; the text may be a little technical. Oddly enough, I was thinking about N in C yesterday; it's the 25th anniversary of the premiere this October, so I thought a TFA? I know these are a hassle, but maybe worth it on occasion. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You are free to do so, but possibly best that I not do so, as I put Washington quarter on the template for August 1, the first I have added to the template this year, and Raul immediately scheduled it for June 18. Nuff said. I did get the book, it is technical, and I will make a point of working on it when I get a chance. Cost was about $15 for copies and $6 fior parking, somewhat less than the $100 or so I saw it for on Amazon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Ponies

FAR on New Forest Pony got bogged down, want to take a peek at it now and see if see if we addressed your concerns? Pesky has a lot to deal with IRL, but I'm trying to round up the cavalry of reviewers and see if we can give her the gold star on that article yet. Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very strapped for time at the moment. I've just looked at the FAC page, and amid the detritus I see three supports and a leaning, so I think the star may not be far away. I have no objection at all to this, but since I have not done anything like a complete review, I can't really make a declaration myself. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nansen's Fram expedition tomorrow

Hi, Brian. It will be on the main page, tomorrow, so I gave it a make over. FWIW, there's dead link ("Vagn Walfrid Ekman 1874–1954") that could use a look-see.  Br'erRabbit  13:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, not much notice there, thanks for letting me know. Nice job on the blurb, whoever did it. I have replaced the dead link with another source. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This was an unofficial notice. Figure it should be done. I think you'll get a bot-notice sometime today. I'll watch the article for mischief while it's up. Best wishes, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be checking on the prose now (who knows what junk has been added on in the last 2½ years?) I tend to avert my eyes during the actual day, to avoid getting into arguments with assorted vandals and other idiots. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No worries; I'm usually rough on vandals and idiots, and everything can be reverted the next day ;) I'll give Nansen some help, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I was travelking without internet access much of the day, but did re-read the article this morning. I thought it read well and did not see any obvious vandalism. Thanks to Br'er Rabbit for the cleanup work, and congrats on the Main Page appearance! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support all about enjoyable re-reading, thanks for cleanup and congrats. Precious! Did you know that it might appear as well? (Did you know that your name appears in the list of awesome Wikipeans 3 times?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Nansen's Fram expedition

This is a note to let the main editors of Nansen's Fram expedition know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fram leaves Bergen on 2 July 1893, bound for the Arctic Ocean.

Nansen's Fram expedition was an 1893–1896 attempt by the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen to reach the geographical North Pole by harnessing the natural east–west current of the Arctic Ocean. In the face of much discouragement from other polar explorers Nansen took his ship Fram to the New Siberian Islands in the eastern Arctic Ocean, froze her into the pack ice, and waited for the drift to carry her towards the pole. Impatient with the slow speed and erratic character of the drift, after 18 months Nansen and a chosen companion, Hjalmar Johansen, left the ship with a team of dogs and sledges and made for the pole. They did not reach it, but they achieved a record Farthest North latitude before a long retreat to Franz Josef Land. Meanwhile Fram continued to drift westward, finally emerging in the North Atlantic Ocean. The ship was rarely threatened during her long imprisonment, and emerged unscathed after three years. The scientific observations carried out during this period contributed significantly to the new discipline of oceanography, which subsequently became the main focus of Nansen's scientific work. Fram's drift and Nansen's sledge journey proved conclusively that there were no significant land masses between the Eurasian continents and the North Pole, and confirmed the general character of the north polar region as a deep, ice-covered sea. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because one hour of notice gives you so much forewarning... Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Tammar wallaby FAC

The article has been commented on further. Would you like to continue your review? LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: PR backlog

I will be glad to take over the PR backlog maintenance. Hope you are soon feeling better, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are in hospital again, I think of you with the best wishes for recovery! Cosima is on my mind, but first I want to translate a bit (!) of tomorrows precious TFA to German. In that context, you do know that you are awesome Wikipedian, right? (8 Feb 2012, 3 Aug 2010 - same as my day, 3 Sep 2010) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_54&oldid=1083573717"