This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gerrit-Jan Berendijk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Good to see that you appreciate the anecdote. The Admiral Beatty site was less than welcoming to an anecdote! I have the original rough draft and now the book - I have updated the citation.
The full text is - There was one 'lion of society' who came very often , and that was Oscar Wilde, who was at the zenith of his fame. I remember him so well, although of course I was too 'small fry' for him to bother to talk to.
George V is mentioned and she says that these were her earliest parties. Very few dates are given in her book. Rosser Gruffydd 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose going from Wilde being at the "zenith of his fame", and year of birth it would put her at only 15 or 16 years old. Which is fairly young. Since the book is privately published are you sure it's a == Greetings... ==
Hello, Ktlynch, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to== Greetings... ==
Good to see that you appreciate the anecdote. The Admiral Beatty site was less than welcoming to an anecdote! I have the original rough draft and now the book - I have updated the citation.
The full text is - There was one 'lion of society' who came very often , and that was Oscar Wilde, who was at the zenith of his fame. I remember him so well, although of course I was too 'small fry' for him to bother to talk to.
George V is mentioned and she says that these were her earliest parties. Very few dates are given in her book. Rosser Gruffydd 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose going from Wilde being at the "zenith of his fame", and year of birth it would put her at only 15 or 16 years old. Which is fairly young. Since the book is privately published are you sure it's a == Greetings... ==
Good to see that you appreciate the anecdote. The Admiral Beatty site was less than welcoming to an anecdote! I have the original rough draft and now the book - I have updated the citation.
The full text is - There was one 'lion of society' who came very often , and that was Oscar Wilde, who was at the zenith of his fame. I remember him so well, although of course I was too 'small fry' for him to bother to talk to.
George V is mentioned and she says that these were her earliest parties. Very few dates are given in her book. Rosser Gruffydd 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose going from Wilde being at the "zenith of his fame", and year of birth it would put her at only 15 or 16 years old. Which is fairly young. Since the book is privately published are you sure it's a reliable source? I don't know it so don't want to judge from afar, it does seem like interesting source material though. Thanks for the reply 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".
I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! Skomorokh, [[WP:BARBARIAN|barbareliable source? I don't know it so don't want to judge from afar, it does seem like interesting source material though. Thanks for the reply 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Good to see that you appreciate the anecdote. The Admiral Beatty site was less than welcoming to an anecdote! I have the original rough draft and now the book - I have updated the citation.
The full text is - There was one 'lion of society' who came very often , and that was Oscar Wilde, who was at the zenith of his fame. I remember him so well, although of course I was too 'small fry' for him to bother to talk to.
George V is mentioned and she says that these were her earliest parties. Very few dates are given in her book. Rosser Gruffydd 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose going from Wilde being at the "zenith of his fame", and year of birth it would put her at only 15 or 16 years old. Which is fairly young. Since the book is privately published are you sure it's a reliable source? I don't know it so don't want to judge from afar, it does seem like interesting source material though. Thanks for the reply 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ktlynch. Thanks for your note and for all of the fine work that you are doing on Oscar's page. You are right about the need for more sourcing on the pages. I have a large number of books by and about Oscar. Unfortunately, I have moved recently and they are in a box lost among a number of boxes (not quote as bad as the end 1st Indiana Jones film but close) so I can't be of much assistance at the moment, but, I will help where I can. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Marnette, and my sympathies on the loss of your texts. I just found this bibliography online: http://www.archive.org/details/bibliographyofos00milluoft , and came across a mention of "The Unrecorded Life of Oscar Wilde" by Rupert Croft-Cooke "an entertainingly no-nonsense little book". It sounded a good little read, have you heard of it?
Hi again. It seems that my wording may have mislead you. I haven't "lost" my books they are just in a stack of boxes that I haven't had time to go through so they are more misplaced then lost. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I have not heard of Rupert C-C book that you mention. I am sure that it would be interesting to read. To poorly paraphrase Oscar "To be a student of Wilde's life is the beginning of a life long romance". Mine began when I saw Vincent Price portray him in a one man play back in the late 1970's. You are probably too young to have seen this. Suffice to say it was special and I have tried to read all that I could ever since. Once again cheers and keep up the good work. MarnetteD | Talk17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Call for Shakespeare editors
Thanks for the kind comments. I would appreciate some support on the talk page. Most of the time it's me and maybe Paul against a slew of drive-by anti-Stratfordians who are on call to drown out our voices. Any help would be appreciated. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wilde refs
Hi, Am planning to help with the refs - just to help make them standardised. Is there more than one Ellman book? You have specified "Penguin paperback" as if you cite a hardback or other edition elsewhere. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's great news, thanks. I specified "Penguin paperback edition" because that is the only edition that's avaliable to me at the moment, It was published in 1988. So at least the references are accurate when I read them. The text is the same, but ideally the references would come from the 1987 hardcover edition. Unfortunately I am not in an English speaking country at the moment so it is more difficult to get hold of difference editions.
If you have access to the book, and are willing, then changing the refs to the corresponding page numbers in Ellman hard would be ideal, but I wouldn't ask anyone to do a task like this! Btw, do you have access to any other books on the subject? There'sa quotation from Douglas in the "Bosie" paragraph that I'd like to keep from earlier versions of the article, but it was never cited. He wrote two books about Wilde, I don't even know which it is from.
Thanks for the help, and any other comments/suggestions for the article are welcome. I'm going to try and beef up the literary criticism in it next. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, No, I have no Wilde books and know not that much about him but am happy to help in London with my laptop. If I standardised to the entry, e.g.
Ellman, R. Oscar Wilde, Penguin 1988, pg.25
with the year, it will be specific enough for anyone to find the ref they need, I think.
i would keep the citations as you have them i.e ref - Ellman, R. Oscar Wilde, Penguin paperback ed. Pg. 474 - ref
rather than fully codified i.e.
citation |last=Beckson |first=Karl E |year=1998 |title=The Oscar Wilde encyclopedia |publisher=AMS Press |series=AMS studies in the nineteenth century, no. 18 |isbn=9780404614980 |url=http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/37464341
Wouldn't like to do it all and find you wanted it codified. Does that work for you?
You're doing a great job - all excellently refed. I hope you get FA status. Best wishes from London.
Thanks, can see this is going to be a great success, good edit! I sort of neglected being very pedantic with proper citation formatting at the start, preferring to get a proper skeleton of the article up, but not see that, in terms of promotion at least, it would have all been for nothing! At least it's not as sensationalist as it was before though. Let's make a big push for GA/FA, and don't be timid about making constructive comments, here or on the article's page. One can start to run out of ideas after working on the same thing for a while. Amitiés de Paris. --Ktlynch (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops, In answer to your question I have no preference either way once it meets FA requirements. I suppose for the sake of stability in the article, the most authoritative references, Ellman, Irish Peacock and Scarlet... could be codified. But whatever works for you--Ktlynch (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. I'm working (slowly) on a (almost from scratch) overhaul of John Keats and have been using Yates as a kind of reference (featured) article. It has two of the most pedantic, anal editors I've ever encountered working on it. So - if their ways (like regular referencing) work, I figure it must pass muster. I think the fact that you have drawn your writing from many sources is the article's great strength. It can be very tempting, it seems, to settle down and get too close in to one biog or perspective. Having lots of images really brings it to life.
I was looking at the most recent work dedicated Wilde, at the back of Covent garden, London. This pic is pretty ugly, I'm not sure it would add much . But the statue is the "only public monument to Oscar Wilde in GB" so you may want to mention it somewhere. Maggi Hambling is also a famous GB artist who has a long series of works dedicated to heroes (as it were) [1].
Hi, I guess the refs need further cleaning up for commas and things. Yesterday I entered most of the ref page numbers as eg p38 (small p) no dot. I guess they'd all need to be changed to be P or Pg to standardise. Perhaps you have begun. It is enough to send a girl cross eyed.
I know, I thought you were exagerating yesterday! It's not a big problem, I've already changed alot to "Pg." since that comment, as I was doing other things. I looked at 8 and 90 too, 8 is just a long winded explaination, basically saying there is a picture too. 90 is more a note, but I think I'm going to delete it as it's not really neccessary. Someone there has complained about Britianica being cited, I don't have a problem with that at all. Anyway, leave it because I'm going to redo that paragraph tomorrow. Cheers, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
re: Wilde
Hi, Ktlynch, you're quite welcome. Wilde is a daunting task to take on, and I definitely admire your ambition of reaching GA/FA -- although not too soon, I hope. :) I'll see what I can do re: suggestions for improvement, but one problem you will run into (definitely at FAC, maybe at GAC, depending on the reviewer) is the over-reliance on Ellman as a source. While it may be a great bio, it certainly isn't the only one, and reviewers may hold it against the article if all major bios and critical works aren't consulted; a lack of variety in sourcing has failed FACs in the past, unfortunately. It may take a while to collect and read all of these sources, so just be patient. As for the direct quotations that are lacking citations, I can try my hand at that if you'd like. Perhaps you can make a list of the exact quotes on the talk page so others could take a stab at them? María(habla conmigo) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm aware of that and working on it now. One problem is that though there are so many other biographies, many of them are self-serving or not historically relaible. Also some other serious sources use reftags, so only appear once in the footnotes. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Your request
Hi Ktlynch. I am not ignoring your request to read through the article. Things are a little hectic right now, but I have been through the opening and the "Early life" section and they look good. I do have one concern. We seem to be putting more emphasis on William's other children then I can remember in the other bio's that I have read. This could be because I am not remembering the details of those bios. But some questions do come up.
Were there only three other children? He spread his favors and I am wondering if there might have been more. Maybe they just weren't acknowledged.
Were they a part (large or small) of Oscar and his brother Willie's life to the point that their presence that would have affected the the boys development.
The sentence about Mary and Emily's death states that it was a tragedy for the Wilde family. Was this really the case? I know how important Isola's death was. In 2001 I took the train to New York to see a comprehensive exhibit of Oscar's life at the Morgan Library. I was in awe of all of that I saw. The two items that I was practically shaking as I viewed were the original De Profundis letter and the envelope, decorated by Oscar, that held a lock of Isola's hair. He had kept it with him the all of his life. Now I may be off a bit on these numbers but Oscar was about 11 when Isola died and the anxiety of puberty might have increased his sorrow. He was around 17 when Mary and Emily died and was thriving at Trinity. I don't remember reading that the girls death was nearly as emotional for him and I can't imagine that Jane was terribly upset.
I am wondering if the information about them might be more relevant to William Wilde's page and maybe should be toned down on Oscar's. Let me point out that I could be entirely wrong in my feelings about this. 1995 though 2001 was when I was studying Oscar in depth. There were 100th anniversaries of so many of the events in his life and there were several films and documentaries, as well as the updated release of all of his letters. I also spent several days in Leadville going through the microfilm of the towns newspapers and touring the Tabor Opera House and the Matchless mine. With this being 8+ years since my studies it should be pointed out that enough time has passed that I might be missing the importance of all of this info about the half sisters and it may be just right in the article the way it is. My questions are probably to get your thoughts about these questions rather than to change the article.
I have one other item. In Feb of 1895 both An Ideal Husband and The Importance... were in theatres. I remember reading that this was the first time since Richard Brinsley Sheridan that one playwright had two plays going on in the West End at the same time. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this and it could also be inaccurate. Have you encountered this in your studies? I am thinking that if this is right and it can be sourced it is a notable enough fact to go into the article.
Well reading this has probably taken up too much of your time and as I read through the rest of the article I will try and by much briefer in my reactions. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hidden notes
Hi, I noticed your hidden note addition to Oscar Wilde. As astonied appears to be in rare usage and classified as archaic or obsolete (dictionaries seem to vary), a more effective solution would be to add a visible footnote to the quotation explaining this use of the word. The fact that Wilde put the word in quotation marks is likely to show that he thought is was a rare word to use even at that time. Although your use of hidden text for this purpose is covered by Help:Hidden text, it is considered better style to avoid hidden advice within an article page and in this case the layman reader of the article would probably find such an explanation in a footnote informative. Ash (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no explanation of why he used it, I can only imagine because he wanted to. How about adding a link to wikitionary?--Ktlynch (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, at least there's something for the reader to follow rather than thinking it is some sort of typo. Ash (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Good call on removing the extra characters, I was hemming and hawing. Did you notice anything else on the page that could use some work? I am getting ready to nominate it for GA, so any feedback would be really great. (I know the plot section is not quite done.) Sadads (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I've only been able to give it a quick look over. I'll copy-edit it fully for you soon, so afterwards I should be able to give detailed feedback. Stay tuned...--Ktlynch (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't mind if you took over the review. In fact, I'd be pleased. I tried my best to review the article, but I have a hard time reading through blocks and blocks of text. Not that I think it can have pictures, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseDeluxe (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
hello. I am still looking for ways to make this article better. It is hardly any obligation on your side. I just htink it would be great. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a few other commitments to finish, but I'm working on some points about the bias problem in the article. I'll post them up when finished. If I were you, I would focus on eliminating the subject's own POV from the article. Also his finance career is notable, and should be told in neutral language, not retrospective self-analysis. I ope this helps. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ktlynch, huge thanks for your detailed notes on the article. I am away the moment but will certainly be taking your advice in the next few days! — PretzelsHii!04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If you read the Daily Mail article I sourced, it's about Hitchens' new book, and specifically discusses his time at Oxford. If the whole list is unacceptable, at least Bill Clinton should be listed on there as it specifies them as drinking pals. SE7Talk/Contribs16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've read the article yes. I wasn't suggesting it was a poor edit. I don't think a long list of people who were at university at the same time as him should be included. There are more important things to discuss, such as his intellectual development and involvment with the Socialist International. Most sources say that he and Bill Clinton never met during the three terms they both resided at Oxford. If you want to write about his friendships, there is an annecdote about first meeting Martin Amis, but I'm not sure even that should be included. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Moving someone else's GA nomination
Please do not move other editors' GA nominations at WP:GAN, especially without consulting with them, as you have done, here [2]. The article Blown for Good is about a book, and I would very much rather it be in the Literature subsection, so it can be reviewed by others familiar with reviewing books and topics within literature. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to let you know, sorry for the confusion. Yes it is about a book, but the literature section is for literature, not religions. Other topics related to scientology were in the religion section also. I thought you might get a more suitable reviewer elsewhere, and that the categories are not chocies but a fixed taxonomy. In any case, your article looks good, and I didn't mean it any harm. --Ktlynch (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not choose the wrong category. You were incorrect to move it, especially without even so much as a courtesy to notify the GA nominator. Thank you for your kind words about the article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I might be able to dig them out. Any source really would be fine, just that section cannot be completely without a citation. --Ktlynch (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
How's this review coming? Looks like it stopped after the 8th. A lot of edits have been made to the article since, though I can't tell if they're fixes or just random edits. Hopefully you can re-look at it soon. WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been following the editing at Skins, and unfortunately it has not addressed the problems in the GAR. I told people on both pages that if there was no improvement soon they would be failed, so that is what's going to happen.--Ktlynch (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Wizardman, I nominated the article way back in December. My real life always takes precedence over Wikipedia, so even though it may be a GAN backlog elimination drive, I've got other, more important things on my mind.
Hi, I have reviewed your article, Saturday (novel), and unfortunately I do not feel it meets the criteria for Good Article status at this time. Please see my comments on the review page, and feel free to contact me for any further comments. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, it was very helpful. I posted some notes on the review page, but haven't had the time to go through all the sources yet. I'll drop you a line in a few days. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to me to have all the right section-headings - off the top of my head I can't think of anything else it should cover, but it might be worthwhile seeing if there are any other novel-articles already granted GA status, just to check what they talk about. Your problem is going to be the scarcity of sources - a novel so recent isn't going to have attracted a substantial body of critical comment yet. Perhaps some literary magazines - how about Granta? - might have some articles. I'll be tied up from Sunday till the middle of next week, but will be happy to do more style-edits after that. PiCo (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi ktlynch, I have a favour to ask. I've enlisted some help regarding the points raised, and should be on track to get it all ironed out. Unfortunately, it might another week or so.
Here's the big thing though: if I drop you a note roughly when it's sorted, would you mind finishing the review shortly thereafter? That would be very helpful, if you could.
That's fine. I would have finished it before now only that I felt it was a shame to fail it when it was near enough. Though I don't want to leave it open much longer, especially in the context of this month. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Gerrit-Jan Berendijk. You have new messages at Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1. Message added 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Production Possibility Frontier edits -- thx & question
Aha, so you were the reviewer! Thanks for your comments and suggestions. But you let us off way too easily. :)
Thanks also for your recent copyedits on the article, especially for correcting my lapse into U.S. spelling (-ize vs. -ise). My intention is always to be careful about that, but this time I was so focused on the content that I must've been on autopilot. (And it was getting quite late.)
I would like to modify (or even revert) one of your edits, though. In the following sentence from the "Efficiency" section, you changed can to should:
"Such a two-good world is a theoretical simplification, necessary for graphical analysis; one good should be treated as a composite basket of all other goods."
My concern is that "should" is far too imperative in this particular context. In searching for a sufficiently authoritative citation for that paragraph, the references I looked at all used less directive words like "can," "may," "could," etc., because there are other correct alternatives one could use instead of a composite good. (Unfortunately, those alternatives require using calculus and fields of math that I don't even recognize.) So using a composite good is just one alternative, not a matter of of necessity, as "should," "must," etc. denote.
In short, if you wouldn't mind, I'd strongly prefer to revert to "can" for the sake of technical accuracy. Or, if you'd like, "could" would provide the subjunctive mood you might be looking for here.
In addition, I took the liberty ("Be bold!") of changing your comma to a semicolon in the same sentence. This may be a difference between U.S. and British grammar, but with just the comma, that was a run-on sentence, i.e., putting two complete sentences together without a "strong stop" (like ! ? . or ;) between them. In Mrs. Rowe's and Miss Riley's English classes in high school, that was one of the mortal grammatical sins that earned an immediate "F," regardless of how brilliant the paper was otherwise. So I'm pretty obsessive-compulsive about that rule, unless it's a U.S. vs. Brit usage matter.
I should add that I particularly like your term "clunky prose"! The PPF article still has plenty of that about that I fully intend to work on over time. I'm still trying to tread a bit gingerly there, though. One of the classic dilemmas in editing is distinguishing between a change that improves the prose vs. one that merely expresses it the way the editor would've said it if he had written it in the first place.
The article also suffers from a number of substantive, technical issues that I'm also working on one bit at a time, so there are many more revisions to come! (In real life, I'm a university econ teacher, and this is a fundamental topic in the field.) In the long run, though, this article could easily be an "A" or even "FA."
Ironically, I was making some rather significant revisions to the head and a few other places at the same time you made your changes, but it was a little over an hour later before I saved mine. The new changes are a mixture of technical corrections and polishing up the prose in those places and others. If you're a glutton for punishment, you can read my rationales for the revisions on Jarry's talk page, section 14, 'More re: "More stuff" (your replies).' (Yes, I do write long posts in general, unfortunately. In this case, the changes were so extensive I wanted to try to explain my reasoning to Jarry before he starting clicking the "revert" button! I've apparently worn him down so much, though, that he's decided to let me run rampant on the article unimpeded, wait for me to die, then change it back to the way he wants it. Cheeky sod, especially after he'd asked for my help!
1) I agree with "can"/"could" over should; I made the change during a rash of fixes.
2) The semicolon is correct. Normally I try to be a stickler for that; but at the time I was focusing more on expression and the technical information than punctuation. I tip my hat and raise my glass to Mrs Rowe and Miss Riley.
3) There was and is some clunky prose, though I thought it fared well compared to other writing about economics. There's room for improvement, but I asked myself if a layman would be able to understand it.
I had thought the article was a bit skant on technical detail, and have been planning some substantive additions but haven't access to the souces at the moment. I sought an opinion on WP:Economics because I hadn't reviewed a technical article before. I think I looked at it from the point of view of the editor of an introductory guide than an true encyclopeadia. I'm fully behind all your edits, please let me know if I can help.
Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
Thanks for your Wilde comment Ktlynch. I don't think I helped much as you wound up having to redo all the page citations - but it was great to see the article change and grow before our eyes. Congrats on all your work and achieving GA status - you really deserve it (though I know it was a band of people involved). Your passion for the work is infectious. I think Oscar would be delighted that his life and story are well represented. Have a good week. Anna Spanglej (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May
On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.
661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).
For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.
Why is it wrong to state that he is an anarchist? Its arguable that his politics were important in shaping his art, and in that sense very important to note about him. ValenShephard 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
It's not wrong to state his is an anarchist, in fact I added significant information about his politics to the article. It is notable and included in the discussion of the work, I just don't think it should be in the first sentence. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The themes and ideas section is quite small and very far down in the article, now, I believe the ideas and influences of an artist are some of the most important things to note about him, so should be stated as a matter of fact when introducing him. If his politics were a small side note in this artistic development, fair enough, but if they are integral to his work, then they should be made more prominent. I want to reach some kind of compromise where his politics are included in his introduction. ValenShephard 10:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
Hi, the themes section is a little larger than average(?). Sometimes criticism and thematic information is woven into the text. I agree it's an important aspect, but it needs to be weighted carefully against others, the article is already quite long. You can make a suggestion on the talk page. Consider also working on The Soul of Man Under Socialism. There's a couple of good essays on this in the books by Declan Kiberd which are listed in the article's bibliography. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thats a fine suggestion. I already added some few extra details to the themes section about his book, as I recently re-read it and had it at hand to quote from. What could the article on the Soul of Man benefit from? ValenShephard 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
Well, there's lots of work to do there, it's only a stub at the moment. Make sure to use a variety of reliable references, and cover the topic encyclopaedicly, i.e. all aspects of it, in a neutral way. It's great that you have the work to hand, but be wary of adding a few quotations, and then original research or personal reflection. There's always a tendency for slight bias in politically related subjects ;). Best of luck, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review for Great Britain at the 2006 Winter Paralympics
It's now been three weeks since you left your review and you don't seem to have been back to check on progress. If you don't have time to complete the review would you mind if I put in a request at WT:GAN for someone else to take over? Basement12(T.C) 10:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse the delay, some earthly problems delayed me. I have closed the review now. --Ktlynch (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Gerrit-Jan Berendijk. You have new messages at Qloque's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
When you get a chance
Hello Ktlynch. Would you plz do me a favor. When you get a chance would you take a look at the changes made today by User:Eduen on Oscar Wilde's article. As you will see here [3] the editor made numerous deletions and changes. Some of them seem cosmetic but some removed referenced items. Now I did not dig too deeply into it but a look at the editors contributions here Special:Contributions/Eduen makes me think that s/he is trying to bring items in several articles into line with their interpretation of "Individualism" and "Anarchism". All of these may be entirely okay but, considering all of the work that you put into Wilde's article, I wouldn't like to see the main points of it changed in a meaningful way without a discussion on the talk page. I also know that this may be more work than you want to deal with so I will understand if you don't have the time or inclination. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Marnette, Hope all is well. I would be happy to have a look for what it's worth. I must also apologise for the delay in responding to your request, as you may have noticed I've been busy off wikipedia recently. Congratulations on your excellent upkeep and improvement of the article . --Ktlynch (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and no need to apologise. Though some would find it hard to believe many of us do have a life off wiki and we do, occasionally, get away from the computer screen :-) Thanks again for taking a look at things. MarnetteD | Talk15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've offered a review, and placed the article on hold for the time being. The article has a lot of issues, and is gonna need considerable work before it's ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
GA Review of V for Vendetta
Hey can you articulate more what you mean by this "Themes, the first part of the section deals compares the film to other works and mentions possible inspirations, though it is usually critic's reflections rather than hard information that tells us a source text. In any case, this section should have a sub-heading and a clearer direction for it decided."
Hello, Kt, I have a question for you about our joint baby Earnest. The current text says that, in the most recent film, there is a host of creditors in an early scene chasing Algernon. But according to the account the text provides of Wilde's compression of the Four Act play into Three Acts, it is Jack Worthing (under the name of Ernest) whose debts are at issue (and in the early scene, Algy would not yet have assumed the identity of Ernest). Do you see the problem? I raise the question, not because I know the answer, but because I don't. Do you have access to the film to sort out the discrepancy? Nandt1 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
They are both indebted. The beginning of the film, with Algernon being chased down, is more character development than a plot point. Mr Grigsby serves Ernest Worthing his notice in Hertfordshire. Ktlynch (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, again. You have deleted a sentence making the rather obvious connection that (a) Jack and Algie lead "double lives" and that (b) the typical Victorian upper class homosexual, like Wilde himself, also lived a double life. In so doing, you state that "scholarly consensus goes "against" this interpretation". Sorry, but what "interpretation"? The sentence does not try to argue that Ernest is a gay play or that Jack and Ernest are living the same kind of double lives as Wilde and other Victorian gays. The simple fact remains -- and the only "original research" needed for this is to read the play -- that Jack and Algie practise deception to camouflage where they are and what they are doing. So, no interpretation or research needed so far. On the other side of the ledger, there is surely no room for doubt that Wilde too practiced deception about his whereabouts and his activities? Any recent biography will document his sexual slumming while overtly leading a respectable married life... Nandt1 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
First this is the sentence in question:
All of this said, the fact that both of the play's leading male characters lead "double lives" creates an obvious parallel to the lives of upper class homosexuals in Victorian England, including the married Wilde himself.
Firstly, it restates what has earlier been outlined in the opening lines of the paragraph. Secondly, the phrase "All of this said" sets up a contradiction of the previous paragraph of cited, academic material, without any explanation why.
I also think you misunderstand the term "original research" when you say, "The simple fact remains -- and the only "original research" needed for this is to read the play" - simply reading the play and offering an interpretation, or drawing a parallel constitutes original research. Wikipedia relies on the impressions of literary scholars and critics, not on its editors. I do not doubt the veracity of the point you make, but its manner (clearing coming down on the side of "gay readings") and the fact that you are reluctant to attribute it to anybody else other than yourself. All of this is important to balance because of the many interpretations of the play which have been made through the lens of "queer theory" during the last 30 years. This is the interpretation I spoke of, and find it unsettling that you, while clearly knowing the text well, are unfamilar with critical material around it.
All of this said, I think you have explained the point here better than the article did before, and will look to work in some of your wording elsewhere. Thanks for all the copyediting recently and I look forward to working with you more. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I have tried to indicate, I actually do not think one needs to buy into any of the "gay readings" of the play -- at least some of which I have indeed read (and/or seen embodied on stage) and thought quite wide of the mark -- to think there is validity in seeing some sort of a parallel (albeit "through the looking glass" as it were) between the double lives of Jack and Algie, and those of Wilde and other gays. In any case, I will look forward to seeing your promised efforts to "look to work in some of your wording elsewhere". Nandt1 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact remains that a source is needed. I agree that the parallel is very simple to draw, but one could posit hundreds of such concidences. I did work in it, almost unchanged into the first sentence of the section; but the GA reviewer questioned it immediately so it has been removed again. That means the ball is in your court, if you can find a reliable source I'd be happy to discuss it with you, of if you haven't access I'll help research it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, a surge in the demands of "real" work (the kind that pays the bills) is going to require me to put Wikipedia on the back burner for a while now. If you have the time and can help find one or more sources on this, I will owe you one. I remain unconvinced that we are dealing with a mere "coincidence" here. Nandt1 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks Nandt1, you are very kind and witty! Your contribution to copy-editing and narrative accuracy in the final stages must be recognised of course. Are you interested in working on Wilde's other comedies? It could be a good topic. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Kt. Although I have occasionally seen Wilde's other plays, I must admit that Earnest has a special place in my affections. I would, though, like to wish you well in your future projects, and -- who knows -- we may yet meet again in these pages! Nandt1 (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Gerrit-Jan Berendijk. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)
I've addressed most of your concerns at the GAN; if you could point out any remaining problematic quotes (and the "casual terms") I'll get right onto it. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The review is still ongoing, but your promptness is appreciated. I've put more some more items up on the review page. Ktlynch (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I made a few edits to Nassim Nicholas Taleb and tagged it. I noticed your remarks on the talk page and wonder if you'd be interested in working on the article to bring it up to GA or at least not a collection of fan club effusions. I've already gotten some push-back from one of the keepers of the flame, and it's something I don't want to try to do alone. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for asking. I would be interested in collaborating. As you say there are some active editors with peculiar views of the page, in a strange way they are well intentioned but the POV and sockpuppetry are so blatant that any number of experienced editors working on the page with good sources will push them off. Ironically, since most people become notable by doing worthy things, a properly written, GA class or above does more for their standing than a rattle-bag of flowerly description and self indulgence. The main constraint I've had recently working on articles is a lack of sources, do you know of a few strong ones - good cites and content drives out the bad. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gerrit-Jan Berendijk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
